By John Wray
BOSTON-- On the day of the Pennsylvania primary, which could go a long way toward determining the Democratic candidate for the general election, Boston University students reacted positively to the idea of a dual Democratic ticket.
Across the board, students said that while a ticket may not eliminate their trepidation about the other candidates, it would help to calm their fears. They also questioned whether it would be feasible.
Those who called themselves Democrats said that they would vote for any Democrat over McCain.
“I can’t really put my name behind a hyper-conservative campaign,” said Eric Brassard from Hollis, N.H. Brassard said that, while he would rather vote for Hillary, he would back Obama, despite his lack of political experience. “He can hold a room like nobody I’ve ever seen,” said Brassard.
Kelly Paice, a 21-year-old junior who is double-majoring in broadcast journalism and political science, said she was raised Republican but has some liberal leanings. She would vote for McCain over Hillary or Obama. While Paice said she dislikes Clinton, she had a lukewarm reaction to the idea of Obama as president.
While she would vote for McCain, she thought that Obama would be a better choice than Hillary. “I think he’d be able to bring a new direction to our country that I think a lot of people feel we need,” said Paice of Obama.
Macky Bastien, a 28-year-old banking and finance graduate student, said that she likes Obama for his “positive outlook.” When asked if she would still vote Democratic if Hillary got the ticket, Bastien paused before answering yes. But Bastien said that she would be happier if Obama were Clinton’s running mate.
Even non-U.S. citizens feel that they have a vested interest in the election results. Dan Levy, a journalism graduate student, is a citizen of Canada who was raised in Montreal. Levy said people are more politically engaged in the United States, and that each election brings drastically different viewpoints to the table. “What happens in the U.S. affects the rest of the world,” said Levy. Levy said that he would vote for Obama over Clinton, because Clinton has run a negative campaign.
At the same time, Levy said that he didn’t think that it was possible for them to even run on the same ticket. “It would almost be hypocritical at this point for her to invite him onto her ticket,” said Levy. “But,” said Levy. “I do think that would be a really strong ticket and I would certainly vote for it.”
--30--
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Great Debate Argues Over Viability, Environmental Effects, of Biofuels
By John Wray
BOSTON—As the Great Debate drew closer, the debaters sat backstage and joked with each other about their debate strategies as they waited for their cue to go on stage. As the laughter subsided, Sean O’Hanlon, a debater arguing for the use of biofuels, paused and warned, “I think there are going to be some interesting surprises.”
The surprise was apparent as the debaters stepped onto the stage. The smiles and joking that were visible backstage were replaced with hard-hitting arguments both for and against the use of biofuels and renewable energy sources as a critical component of U.S. energy policy. At the center of the debate were the issues of global warming and the viability of biofuels, with both sides arguing that their platform was best for both.
“Biofuels are an energy solution that is, for the most part good, and has the potential to be great,” said Brooke Coleman, the lead speaker for the affirmative and founder of the Northeast Biofuels Collaborative.
Robert Bryce, lead speaker of the opposition countered that, “If you want more hunger and a hotter planet, then cooking up more biofuels is a recipe to achieve just that.”
Bryce, an author of many books about the energy business, also spoke about the impracticality of biofuel. “Even if we used all of our corn and soybeans to make fuel, we’d still be importing 10.9 million barrels of oil per day,” Bryce said in his prepared remarks. “And we wouldn’t have anything to eat.”
However, the affirmative team argued that the opposition simply derailed biofuel. “He didn’t offer any solution to our energy crisis,” said Boston University College of Communication senior Neil St. Clair during his rebuttal. St. Clair said that the only viable solutions right now are renewable energy sources. “Fossil fuels will run out. Maybe biofuels are the answer, maybe not… I don’t know,” said St. Clair in an interview after the debate. “But,” as he observed during his speech, “some action needs to be taken now to prevent catastrophe in the future.”
The semiannual debate, in its 13th year, offered a prominent topic facing America. “I always try and get something that is a front burner in the news,” said Robert Zelnick, the chairman of the debate.
With rising gas prices and increasing demand for a more eco-friendly policy in Washington, the discussion about the viability of biofuels has increased in recent months, as more government mandates made biofuels a legal necessity in the country.
“The subsidy is the problem,” said Kenneth Green, an environmental policy analyst speaking for the opposition. “Not the type of fuel.” The opposition argued that government subsidies increased the price of biofuels for American taxpayers. But they argued that those resources could be used to research better methods of renewable energy resources without harming the environment and stealing food from the country.
Still, the affirmative side was declared the winner at the end of the debate as the audience was asked to vote for who debated better.
Coleman’s closing argument, the last of the debate, summed up his argument against the opposition. “If we cannot achieve everything,” said Coleman, “is it better to not achieve anything at all?”
--30--
BOSTON—As the Great Debate drew closer, the debaters sat backstage and joked with each other about their debate strategies as they waited for their cue to go on stage. As the laughter subsided, Sean O’Hanlon, a debater arguing for the use of biofuels, paused and warned, “I think there are going to be some interesting surprises.”
The surprise was apparent as the debaters stepped onto the stage. The smiles and joking that were visible backstage were replaced with hard-hitting arguments both for and against the use of biofuels and renewable energy sources as a critical component of U.S. energy policy. At the center of the debate were the issues of global warming and the viability of biofuels, with both sides arguing that their platform was best for both.
“Biofuels are an energy solution that is, for the most part good, and has the potential to be great,” said Brooke Coleman, the lead speaker for the affirmative and founder of the Northeast Biofuels Collaborative.
Robert Bryce, lead speaker of the opposition countered that, “If you want more hunger and a hotter planet, then cooking up more biofuels is a recipe to achieve just that.”
Bryce, an author of many books about the energy business, also spoke about the impracticality of biofuel. “Even if we used all of our corn and soybeans to make fuel, we’d still be importing 10.9 million barrels of oil per day,” Bryce said in his prepared remarks. “And we wouldn’t have anything to eat.”
However, the affirmative team argued that the opposition simply derailed biofuel. “He didn’t offer any solution to our energy crisis,” said Boston University College of Communication senior Neil St. Clair during his rebuttal. St. Clair said that the only viable solutions right now are renewable energy sources. “Fossil fuels will run out. Maybe biofuels are the answer, maybe not… I don’t know,” said St. Clair in an interview after the debate. “But,” as he observed during his speech, “some action needs to be taken now to prevent catastrophe in the future.”
The semiannual debate, in its 13th year, offered a prominent topic facing America. “I always try and get something that is a front burner in the news,” said Robert Zelnick, the chairman of the debate.
With rising gas prices and increasing demand for a more eco-friendly policy in Washington, the discussion about the viability of biofuels has increased in recent months, as more government mandates made biofuels a legal necessity in the country.
“The subsidy is the problem,” said Kenneth Green, an environmental policy analyst speaking for the opposition. “Not the type of fuel.” The opposition argued that government subsidies increased the price of biofuels for American taxpayers. But they argued that those resources could be used to research better methods of renewable energy resources without harming the environment and stealing food from the country.
Still, the affirmative side was declared the winner at the end of the debate as the audience was asked to vote for who debated better.
Coleman’s closing argument, the last of the debate, summed up his argument against the opposition. “If we cannot achieve everything,” said Coleman, “is it better to not achieve anything at all?”
--30--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)