Cross-posted from the Huffington Post
Only one true winner will emerge from the upcoming comedic battle between fear and sanity: our democracy.
The Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert rally held this Saturday, October 30th, will serve not only as the country’s largest public service announcement for the November 2nd midterm elections, but also provide young people with a forum – an outlet to express their hopes and frustrations about today’s political process.
The frustrations of this generation are understandable. In 2008, politicians made sure young people got an invitation to the party, but since then they’ve been left off the guest list. While it is heartening to see leaders like President Obama once again reaching out to young people, as he will on The Daily Show tonight, it may be too little for this generation that is looking for candidates to stop the bickering and start leading. In our recent young voter poll, two-thirds of young people indicated that they feel more cynical about politics now than they did two years ago. Politicians seem to be reinforcing that cynicism with partisan bickering and endless attack ads this election cycle, so young people are turning to their peers and comedians like Stewart and Colbert to engage with our political process.
The fact that young people identify with Stewart and Colbert’s ironic tone doesn’t mean they’ve given up on civic engagement. As they demonstrated in 2008, young people are hungry to be a part of something larger than themselves. Our recent young voter poll also showed that while young people may be more cynical about politics, an overwhelming majority of 83% believes their generation has the power to change this country. That belief will be manifested in the rally, where young people will come together on the National Mall and at dozens of satellite rallies around the country regardless of party affiliation.
Yes, there will be clever signs, ridiculous costumes, and of course, a comedy show from Stewart and Colbert. Yet, the hosts’ brand of political satire can only succeed with an audience informed enough to understand the reality behind the humor. Young people know very well what is at stake in the upcoming midterm elections, and they are anything but apathetic. They are among those suffering worst from high unemployment, and many are worrying how they will pay their student loans. They understand that elections affect these issues and others they care about, and the rally provides a space to engage with their peers about such shared experiences. Perhaps not everyone will get close enough to really hear Stewart and Colbert, but the audience will be listening to each other.
While the rally will raise money for noble causes, it is also important we take stock of its symbolic significance. Thousands of young people will gather together to celebrate sanity and make a mockery of fear. The rally will serve as the unified voice of a generation, one telling politicians and others who doubt their political power that they are still here and they will not be taken lightly. They will show everyone they are unafraid and we will support them by offering a pledge to Vote Fearlessly on November 2nd. Like Stewart and Colbert, we will give them a platform from which to speak – but it is their voice that will shape our country’s future.
Tags: Colbert, Rally, Stewart, young voters
 |
Heather Smith Bio: Heather is President of Rock the Vote. @rtvHS Email the author at: blog(at)rockthevote.com |
You guys are so clueless to think there is any real differentiation between blue and red. It’s all just smoke and mirrors. We get O on Jon Stuart last night talking about the “heckuva job” (sound like someone else?) Larry Summers has done giving unlimited funds to the banking industry while unemployment remains persistently high. And see the link below to the HuffPo that rips Barry a new one for his blind eye to the whole mortgage fiasco to protect the lobbied banking industry.
If you like to cross post from the Huffington Post, why don`t you start with some more relevant material. You folks need to wake up and smell the coffee.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/27/cop-slams-obama-treasury-foreclosure_n_775054.html
“I’m concerned about Treasury making representations categorically that you don’t see a systemic risk,” Silvers told Treasury’s chief homeownership officer. “And let me walk you through exactly why.”
“That letter asks for $47 billion of mortgages — of mortgage- backed securities to be repurchased at par,” Silvers went on. “Do you know what those mortgages are currently carried at … the market value of those bonds today?”
Caldwell declined to comment.
Silvers continued:
“OK, fine. Let me tell you what the Fed says they’re worth. The Fed tells us they’re worth 50 cents on the dollar. So if the Fed’s request to Bank of America is honored, right, Bank of America, assuming they are carrying these bonds, assuming when they buy them back they mark them to market, Bank of America will take a $23 billion loss.
“The Federal Reserve further informs us that there is nothing particularly unique about that particular set of mortgage-backed securities — meaning they have not been chosen…because they’re particularly bad. They believe they are of a common quality with the rest of Bank of America’s underwritten mortgage-backed securities. There are $2 trillion [worth] of Bank of America’s underwritten mortgage-backed securities.
“Five such deals — five such requests, if honored to Bank of America…will amount to more than the current market capitalization of Bank of America, which is $115 billion.
“Now do you wish to retract your statement that there is no systemic risk in this situation? And the word is ‘risk’ — not ‘certainty’ — but ‘risk’? And I would urge you to do so, because these things can be embarrassing later.”
Caldwell repeated her earlier claim that it was still early in the review. She added that Treasury is working “very closely” with “11 regulatory and federal agencies,” and that the administration is “watching this every day.
“And that at this stage there appears to be no evidence of a systemic risk — but again it is early and it is something we are monitoring daily,” Caldwell said.
Silvers questioned her again.
“Let me suggest to you that the ‘it is still early’ is a perfectly acceptable position. … Is it your position that Bank of America honoring five of these things would not present a systemic risk? … Is Bank of America not systemically significant?”
Caldwell responded that she and Treasury “didn’t say there was no risk. We said there didn’t appear to be evidence of a major systemic risk.”
“I hope that … if the Treasury comes back to us and is discussing whether or not we need to deploy further public funds to rescue Bank of America, or such other institutions as might be affected by these events, that we get a similar kind of indifference to their fate after it’s too late,” Silvers shot back. “Because it strikes me that in light of the mathematics I’ve gone through with you, it is not a plausible position that there is no systemic risk here.”
A whole lot of article but what’s the solution?
go to countdown21.com – time is running out