Wendy Kopp on The Colbert Report!

Wendy Kopp, President and Founder of Teach For America, did a great job last night on The Colbert Report.  You can check out the short segment here:

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=81626

Boo

Halloween is one of my favorite holidays.

I call it a “free pass” holiday. Along with Cinco de Mayo, St. Patty’s Day, and New Year’s Eve, it’s one of the few occasions that offers supposed adults of every background a free pass to come undone. We get to play dress up, eat obscene amounts of candy, and enjoy festive beverages like “green beer” and “martinis with eyeballs.” Yes, there is nothing I don’t like about about Halloween.

Halloween can be scary, very scary. Not only do I have to endure Hollywood’s latest barrage of gore, I have to sit through campaign ad after campaign ad. As if the amateur graphics and cheesy transitions weren’t enough, I must decipher the implications of terms like “liberal,” “conservative,” and “war on terror.” The glaring partisanship of the current political climate is by far the scariest part of late October.

I have an ingrained interest in debate. The psychology of the argument, the intricacies of the opinions and the ironic similarities between the opposing sides fascinate me. Now, I’m aware of the benefits associated with a two-party system, and I recognize the value of political parties when they function properly. However, I am also troubled by the divisive language and hard-line partisanship I see in the 2006 mid-term elections. Labels are flying like daggers, and the most deadly have far-right and far-left implications. The term “liberal” is now an accusation, and “stay the course” was retired by even our most stubborn Republican leader. Do people respond to this type of rhetoric? I am dejected to admit that they do.

Isn’t there value in a moderate point of view? Shouldn’t we respond to voting and performance records rather than labels? Until these labels convey deeper meaning and carry definite implications, I cannot justify voting strictly on party and conservative/liberal lines. Justice Hunstein (GA Supreme Crt.) recently asserted during a debate that she was neither a liberal, a conservative, a Republican, or a Democrat, but a judge who upholds the law. I let this idea grow in my mind; here is what I’ve determined:

We scrutinize important decisions. Would you read a car’s label and not test drive? Would you buy a pair of pants because the tag claims they fit, or a pair of shoes that look like your size? Probably not. So why vote without investigating, digging, and examining records? Don’t take anyone’s word for it, not a blog, not a station, not an opponent, not a proponent.

Isn’t our democracy worth it?

Truth or Exploitation?

Today the national media was buzzing with commentary. The subject: Rush Limbaugh’s controversial remarks about Michael J. Fox’s appearnce in a campaign ad for Clair McHaskill (D-MO).

Now, I’m skeptical of campaign ads in general. They are short, superficial, sensational, and quite often ridiculous, yet there are the select few that utilize honest, effective marketing to convey a true message. After reviewing the ad in question, I genuinely feel that it belongs in the second group.

Yes, Michael’s appearance is shocking. Yes, his bobs and tremors are glaring. But despite these distractions, and quite possibly becaues of them, he makes a brief but strikingly eloquent argument in favor of stem cell research. I do not find his appearance offensive in the least. If Michael J. Fox did withhold his medication, as Rush Limbaugh so bullishly declared, then he merely showed his true disability. Were it not for modern medicine, he would never be able to disguise his horrible tremors. It is the blatancy of his illness which underlines his endorsement of stem cell research.

I found commentator Lennard Davis’ NPR piece to be quite interesting. He offers a unique point of view, going so far as to suggest that Rush’s comments point to a common sentiment: that disabled people should hide their conditions. Is it bad form to flaunt one’s disability for what it truly is? And to what extent do disabilities define us? Is it really rude to use a disability to make a point? Granted, the sympathy card does not sit well with most, but in this instance, I believe Michael J. Fox merely showed his illness for what it is: a horribly crippling disease known as Parkinson’s.