Back to school: Remember that course in event planning & meeting management I took last spring? Well, now that I'm unemployed, I've been thinking about going ahead for the certification course offered by Raritan Valley Community College. Actually, it's been in the back of my mind since before my contract ended; I had contacted Michigan State University and got a copy of my transcript so I could compare RVCC's required courses against ones I had taken at MSU.
Anyway, this past Tuesday I went to inquire about waiving some of RVCC's course requirements. I got sent to the Dean of Admissions, Thomas Valasek, who sat down with me, went through my MSU transcript, and decided that four of the required ten courses were able to be waived. I had already taken one course (last spring). And my decade of being Ombudsman for American Mensa, he decided, could be used to waive another course. Six out of ten, woo-hoo!
Thursday, armed with my list of courses, I went in to see an advisor about registration. She told me I'd have to get another transcript from MSU -- one that I had not opened -- and take it over to the Records Office for formal waiving of the courses. (It doesn't hurt that Dean Valasek had already OK'd it, but officially it has to go through the office, and they have the final say.) And of the three courses I wanted to take, one (Intro to Public Relations) had the only session I could take cancelled for lack of interest, while another (Speech) had both sessions I wanted closed to additional students. So I registered for the third -- Marketing I -- and went home to watch online, hoping one of the two Speech sessions would have an opening come up.
No luck there. But I found another session that met Saturday mornings from 8 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. -- for only seven weeks. So I went back to RVCC this morning and added the Saturday Speech course. Now I'm all enrolled -- and I'm waving goodbye to $750 for tuition (and other costs). And I still have to buy books.
The fall semester starts September 5 and runs through December 15. (The Speech course goes only through October 23.) The Marketing course is Tuesdays and Thursdays, 10:30 a.m. to 11:50 a.m.; I already told you about the Speech course. Once they're done, the only courses left (assuming the Records Office agrees with the Dean about my waiving classes) will be the Intro to PR, and a term-length internship with a real event/meeting company.
I hope this is worth it...
Friday, August 31, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Everybody wants to rule the world: It's how I feel about the news that some states are thinking of holding Presidential primary elections in February 2008, or January 2008 -- or even December 2007. Now I know New Hampshire and Iowa always go first -- in fact, it's state law that they go first, ahead of any other state. (The only reason they're not fighting each other is because NH holds an election while IA holds a caucus. Yet another reason why words matter.) But recently, South Carolina moved their primary date to be ahead of all the other southern states. Florida decided that just wouldn't do, so they moved their primary ahead of SC. Meanwhile, many states have moved their primaries to a date now known as "Tsunami Tuesday", replacing the old "Super Tuesday" (which was a later date).
In a show of, well, whatever, Bill-the-Honeybear and I agree that, on this one, it's time for the federal government to step in. After all, Congress legislated years ago that election day is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. As far as federal elections go, Congress can make binding election law. And federal law trumps state law, generally.
What we propose is that Congress pass a law setting the date for national primary elections for federal offices -- the President, Senators, and Representatives. Allow a loophole for NH and IA to hold theirs a week or so earlier, as a nod to tradition.
Me, I think it would be great to force candidates to campaign nationally in preparation for one big primary election. Don't you think it would reduce the pandering to states/regions that is such a huge part of primary electioneering today? Don't you think it's better to have the possibility of there being two or three candidates with equal amounts of support going into the conventions? And wouldn't it be more fun to watch some good old-fashioned horse-trading -- excuse me, compromise -- during the conventions? On the theatrical side, it would be much more exciting -- and generate lots more media attention -- than the coronations we've been subject to for the last 20-odd years.
In a show of, well, whatever, Bill-the-Honeybear and I agree that, on this one, it's time for the federal government to step in. After all, Congress legislated years ago that election day is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. As far as federal elections go, Congress can make binding election law. And federal law trumps state law, generally.
What we propose is that Congress pass a law setting the date for national primary elections for federal offices -- the President, Senators, and Representatives. Allow a loophole for NH and IA to hold theirs a week or so earlier, as a nod to tradition.
Me, I think it would be great to force candidates to campaign nationally in preparation for one big primary election. Don't you think it would reduce the pandering to states/regions that is such a huge part of primary electioneering today? Don't you think it's better to have the possibility of there being two or three candidates with equal amounts of support going into the conventions? And wouldn't it be more fun to watch some good old-fashioned horse-trading -- excuse me, compromise -- during the conventions? On the theatrical side, it would be much more exciting -- and generate lots more media attention -- than the coronations we've been subject to for the last 20-odd years.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Sex, religion, and politics. Well, I'm not going to talk about religion, but I am talking about the other two. Specifically, the televised interviews with six of the eight Democratic candidates for President, sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and aired live on Logo, a cable channel geared at gay and lesbian viewers.
Who was there? In alphabetical order, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson. Gravel was initially not invited because HRC based their invitations on "how much money have you raised?". Apparently, large gay groups in New York and Los Angeles complained mightily, and HRC issued a fast invite to Gravel -- who wasn't about to let HRC off the hook and actually related the circumstances behind his belated invitation at the start of his interview.
The format was that each candidate got between 15 minutes to answer questions from a panel of three -- including Melissa Etheridge and Joe Salmonese, head of HRC -- then end up with a one-minute closing statement. At no time did all six candidates share the stage -- this was not a debate by any means, although later speakers got to refer to statements made by their rivals earlier in the night.
For those who are wondering, the first speaker was Obama, and the last was Clinton.
The immediate question is, of course, "Who won?" It's a highly subjective question. My answer would be John Edwards, and you'll see why in my comments on the candidates below...
Barack Obama has the worst off-the-cuff style of the six. He fumbled and bumbled his way around softball questions (which, basically, almost all of the questions to all the candidates were) and never seemed to give a direct answer. Maybe it was nerves, but he's already done live debates with his rivals and come out OK. And he (and all the candidates) were in front of an audience already disposed to be friendly. It's just inexplicable.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, did just fine as a speaker. Her big mistake? Saying that the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" couldn't be achieved until she was President. C'mon, now -- she's on the Armed Services Committee, so she could bring up a repeal bill any time she wants. The Democrats have control of both houses of Congress (amazingly, she seemed to be saying that the Republicans still control Congress), and there's bipartisan support for repeal. So what's she afraid of -- a Presidential veto that can't be overridden? All that means is you bring the bill up again and again until (a) the President doesn't veto, or (b) you get a vote that will assure veto override. She seemed to be the candidate of inaction -- something the GLBT community doesn't need.
Dennis Kucinich went on and on about how he was going to bring love to the White House and to the country. All I could think of was the satirical musical Of Thee I Sing, which told of a candidate running on a platform of love, and featured the song "Love Is Sweeping the Country". He also, when asked, stated that there wasn't one item on the GLBT agenda that he disagreed with. However, he's one of only two candidates who supported marriage equality (aka same-sex marriage). The other one is...
Mike Gravel, former Senator from Alaska who has somewhat of a history with progressive civil rights legislation. He was also the funniest of the candidates interviewed -- when asked why other men of his generation were so opposed to marriage equality and other GLBT rights issues, he said, "Because they're stupid!" Another similarity between Kucinich and Gravel: while the other candidates looked at their questioners, they looked around to the live studio audience when answering. They played the crowd, and the crowd responded.
Bill Richardson managed to shoot himself in the foot. He was more tongue-tied than Obama, and made a disastrous statement near the beginning of his interview saying he thought homosexuality was a choice. (Yes, his campaign put out a clarifying statement, but the damage was done.) He also brought up, several times, his record as a former congressman and as governor of New Mexico in terms of GLBT rights -- a very good record, and probably better than those of the other candidates -- but he never seemed to recover from his opening stumble.
John Edwards, on the other hand, not only spoke well but also was able to be articulate and forthright on those positions where he was at odds with GLBT political leaders without being defensive or apologetic. He did meander a little into his wife's on-air scolding of conservative pundit Ann Coulter, but he didn't drag it into his other answers. And he seemed convincing when he said that he would leave his religion outside the door when working as President.
Each of the candidates had good moments and bad ones. But taken on the whole, the clear winner in my estimation was John Edwards; and the clear loser, unfortunately, was Bill Richardson.
Who was there? In alphabetical order, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson. Gravel was initially not invited because HRC based their invitations on "how much money have you raised?". Apparently, large gay groups in New York and Los Angeles complained mightily, and HRC issued a fast invite to Gravel -- who wasn't about to let HRC off the hook and actually related the circumstances behind his belated invitation at the start of his interview.
The format was that each candidate got between 15 minutes to answer questions from a panel of three -- including Melissa Etheridge and Joe Salmonese, head of HRC -- then end up with a one-minute closing statement. At no time did all six candidates share the stage -- this was not a debate by any means, although later speakers got to refer to statements made by their rivals earlier in the night.
For those who are wondering, the first speaker was Obama, and the last was Clinton.
The immediate question is, of course, "Who won?" It's a highly subjective question. My answer would be John Edwards, and you'll see why in my comments on the candidates below...
Barack Obama has the worst off-the-cuff style of the six. He fumbled and bumbled his way around softball questions (which, basically, almost all of the questions to all the candidates were) and never seemed to give a direct answer. Maybe it was nerves, but he's already done live debates with his rivals and come out OK. And he (and all the candidates) were in front of an audience already disposed to be friendly. It's just inexplicable.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, did just fine as a speaker. Her big mistake? Saying that the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" couldn't be achieved until she was President. C'mon, now -- she's on the Armed Services Committee, so she could bring up a repeal bill any time she wants. The Democrats have control of both houses of Congress (amazingly, she seemed to be saying that the Republicans still control Congress), and there's bipartisan support for repeal. So what's she afraid of -- a Presidential veto that can't be overridden? All that means is you bring the bill up again and again until (a) the President doesn't veto, or (b) you get a vote that will assure veto override. She seemed to be the candidate of inaction -- something the GLBT community doesn't need.
Dennis Kucinich went on and on about how he was going to bring love to the White House and to the country. All I could think of was the satirical musical Of Thee I Sing, which told of a candidate running on a platform of love, and featured the song "Love Is Sweeping the Country". He also, when asked, stated that there wasn't one item on the GLBT agenda that he disagreed with. However, he's one of only two candidates who supported marriage equality (aka same-sex marriage). The other one is...
Mike Gravel, former Senator from Alaska who has somewhat of a history with progressive civil rights legislation. He was also the funniest of the candidates interviewed -- when asked why other men of his generation were so opposed to marriage equality and other GLBT rights issues, he said, "Because they're stupid!" Another similarity between Kucinich and Gravel: while the other candidates looked at their questioners, they looked around to the live studio audience when answering. They played the crowd, and the crowd responded.
Bill Richardson managed to shoot himself in the foot. He was more tongue-tied than Obama, and made a disastrous statement near the beginning of his interview saying he thought homosexuality was a choice. (Yes, his campaign put out a clarifying statement, but the damage was done.) He also brought up, several times, his record as a former congressman and as governor of New Mexico in terms of GLBT rights -- a very good record, and probably better than those of the other candidates -- but he never seemed to recover from his opening stumble.
John Edwards, on the other hand, not only spoke well but also was able to be articulate and forthright on those positions where he was at odds with GLBT political leaders without being defensive or apologetic. He did meander a little into his wife's on-air scolding of conservative pundit Ann Coulter, but he didn't drag it into his other answers. And he seemed convincing when he said that he would leave his religion outside the door when working as President.
Each of the candidates had good moments and bad ones. But taken on the whole, the clear winner in my estimation was John Edwards; and the clear loser, unfortunately, was Bill Richardson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
