D.C.: Demand the Vote

     When I was younger I loved going away to sleep-away camp and vacations in different parts of the country.  One of my favorite things to do when meeting other kids on these trips was to respond to the question, “What state are you from?” with “I don’t live in a state, I live in a city.”  I would get that feeling of superiority little kids have when they think they know more than the other kids.  Of course, this little tidbit of information became less impressive as the years went on, but I was still able to shock a few younger Buffalonians every once in a while.

     With a new Congress in place this January, the question of D.C.’s representation in Congress resurfaces.  There are a few different approaches to this issue, from retrocession to changing street names.  It is a multi-faceted issue and not the most urgent on the minds of most of the D.C. newcomers.  Still, it’s an issue that warrants attention.

     I think D.C. deserves its own vote in both the House and the Senate.  As the capital city and home to 600,000 Americans we have the right to Congressional representation.  I can say from experience that the city is full of opinionated people and these voices should be heard in the legislative process.  The easiest and most democratic way for this to happen is giving D.C. the vote.

     Although retrocession gives us this vote with Maryland, I would rather have our own elected representatives for the D.C. area.  However, one of the unique aspects of D.C. is its status as a city and not a state.  In order to gain these rights, we should avoid lobbying for statehood and instead consider Constitutional revision for voting rights as the capital city.  This process would be time-consuming, but well worth the effort.

     The issue of D.C. voting rights has been around for a while, and much work and energy has been put behind efforts to put it into action.  Especially after this week there are more pressing issues the Hill has been dealing with and will continue to deal with, but that will always be true.  Instead of pushing the issue to the back burner again the new Congress should take another look and put it to bed for good.

Video Essays: The Future of the Dreaded College Process?

     College applications: the most discussed complaint and worry of first semester senior year.  Now that I have finally finished mine, I have started to block the stress out of my memory and look forward to a more relaxed second semester.  However, reading an article on the Washington Post website reminded me of some painful memories and brought to mind the unnecessarily brutal process that is applying to college.

     Some universities in the United States, including George Mason University in Fairfax, have begun to accept videos made by applicants as part of their supplements.  Applicants can produce, shoot, and edit a video about themselves using whatever equipment and resources they have available.  Most schools that accept videos do not accept them as a replacement for an essay and are usually list them as optional.  Luckily, none of the schools I applied to have this option, but the article had me thinking about what this new addition could mean for future applicants.

    When I first heard about the video option offered by some schools I thought it was an interesting idea.  Videos give applicants a chance to more fully represent themselves than in essays.  Some things can’t be as well portrayed on paper than they are visually, and some people have a hard time expressing themselves through writing.  It makes the admissions officers’ jobs a little less boring and monotonous as well.  Instead of reading essay after essay, most of which they have probably seen before, they get to see the personality of the applicants in action and their creativity in a different medium.  I’m not sure how well I could do with making an application video, but I know a lot of kids who would definitely thrive with that kind of a project.

     Although, the more I thought about these videos, the more issues I began to see that accompanied them.  The biggest one I saw was equipment.  Sure, if you have a lot of creativity it should show no matter the quality of the equipment, but there are still huge advantages in having more advanced cameras and editing programs.  An applicant could have an amazing idea for a video, shoot it with whatever camera they had and end up getting terrible sound quality, making the entire project useless.  On the other hand, someone could have access to top of the line equipment and have options to add in to his video that other programs don’t provide.  If the video options continue to become popular with colleges, I think more guidelines should be put in place with the production of the videos to allow a little more fair chance in the process.

     Another major issue I saw with the video supplement was how public some of them become.  Some schools create YouTube channels for video supplements for applicants to post their videos on.  Even if the videos are on a specific channel they are still open to the public of YouTube viewers.  With something as competitive and stressful as the college process, having part of the application public is a very bad idea.  Even though high school seniors are supposed to be entering adulthood and should be mature does not mean that we are.  Classmates of students who post videos for applications could potentially see the video and use it as a judgment for or against them.  Applications are meant for admissions officers, and once a public aspect is introduced to them, their entire nature could change.  If a college decides to offer a video supplement, they should make sure to have a private and secure way for the videos to be submitted.

     I know I may be getting a bit ahead of myself.  As of now, very few colleges actually do accept video supplements and most of them have very little effect on whether the applicant is accepted or not.  However, if the idea is adjusted and revised, I think accepting videos could be an innovating step for the college application process.

New Year, New Washington

     It’s a new year.  It’s a time for new beginnings, renewed resolutions and new expectations.  Once I finished reading my favorite part of January 1, The Washington Posts’s “In and Out” list (I completely agree with the Kardashian crazy going out), I began my new resolution: blog more.  After a brief hiatus due mostly to college applications and Christmas shopping, Katie’s Capital is back just in time for 2011.

     Along with the parties and college football that roll around with the New Year are government changes in power.  With the beginning of this month Washington has a new mayor as well as a majority Republican House of Representatives.  And this new Congress plans to do more than shoot down health-care legislation; it is ready to make history.  Once they begin their term on January 5, the new House will read aloud the Constitution as a reminder of the principles the American government was founded on, for the first time in American government history.  Each new bill that reaches Congress will have to contain textual backing from the Constitution as well.  It is an interesting approach, though some see these two rules as a Tea-Partyization of Congress.  I think it is a good idea to revisit the original ideas of the founding fathers, but there are also dangers in over-studying a 224-year-old document.

     As every history teacher I have ever had has told me, context is key when studying historical documents.  Much of the principles laid out in the Constitution are still very relevant to how the government runs today.  However, some points, like the right to bear arms during a time when the most dangerous arms were muskets, are more relevant to 200 years ago.  That’s not to say Congress can still interpret and apply these points to today’s society, but I think caution is necessary when listening to and understanding the document.

     Another issue Congress should pay attention to is proof-texting.  Now a bill must contain citations from the Constitution, it is important to keep in mind the document as a whole and the relevance of certain parts.  Attempting to imply meaning to certain items in order to pass a bill could cause issues in the entire law-making process as well as the manner in which Congress interprets the Constitution.  This may be an exaggerated fear, but something to keep in mind nonetheless.

     Change is always associated with this time of year.  And with change people bring new ideas to keep things fresh, trying to avoid being caught in a stagnant state.  These new ideas may work, or they may have no affect at all, but exercising caution in the institution of these changes may be the best idea of them all.