The Student Association executive board elections are around the corner, and petitions will be open Feb. 17 for anyone looking to run. Potential SA presidents and delegates alike will comb the campus looking for the required signatures for placement on the ballot.
Or maybe not. In last year's elections, the office of SA president went uncontested, allowing then-Vice President Dela Yador to slide into the top spot unchallenged. Outsiders often view the SA as a basin of nepotism, and Yador's accentuation to the presidency, through no fault of his own, gave weight to that perception. With any luck, this won't be the case this year.
We hope this year's SA E-Board election finds a slew of qualified students looking to win office. A university with approximately 18,000 undergraduates shouldn't need to scramble for willing participants. Last year's lack of competition was indicative of the disregard shown for student government by our undergraduate population.
Incumbency itself isn't the problem. Most, like Yador, are good candidates and know how to run SA. But new visions and ideas often don't come from within. Outside perspective is needed for any effective change to take place within government, and UB is no different. New blood allows for competitive races, which brings out the best (and worst, as we saw last year) the candidates have to offer. This allows for the democratic exchange of ideas, which means better representatives get elected to office on the strength of their vision.
In order to ensure UB's SA E-Board is staffed with the best, a bigger sample must turn out to run this time around. We urge anyone interested in improving SA to join the race, and may the best undergrad win.
When the levee breaks
Bush administration's Katrina dishonesty points to bigger problem
A pressing problem underlying politics today is the willingness of our nation's citizenry to accept the "white" lies told by our politicians, a phenomenon that is manifested in the Bush administration's modus operatus of serial dishonesty. The culmination? The "Big Easy" morphed into the "Big Lie."
In statements that would bring Machiavelli to shame, former FEMA director Michael Brown testified last week that the White House was personally notified of New Orleans' levee breach Monday night. Previously, Bush officials and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff claimed they didn't know about the levee failure until late Tuesday after Hurricane Katrina hit.
Why the administration lied, and what it was doing during that time gap, is beyond us. On Sept. 1, Bush said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." In retrospect, that statement further exemplifies the White House's efforts at keeping the truth hidden from public consumption for as long as possible.
A multitude of investigations determined mistakes were made at crucial junctures throughout every level of government in preparation, and in response, to the hurricane. Bu, the White House is the only actor involved that was dishonest in it's reported handling of the disaster. And while the reason is unclear, if past behavior is any indication, it was done to protect their interests at the nation's expense.
And here lies the heart of the problem. Politicians are allowed, even expected, to tell "white" lies. But, the Bush administration pushes massive lies under the guise of little ones. Why tell the truth and face the pain that comes with it when we allow them to lie without consequence? Until voters make it clear this isn't acceptable anymore, our nations political leadership will continue manipulating the truth at our expense.
Photo: Breadchastick / Wikimedia Commons
