By Kristoffer Munden, Gavel Blogger -

¡Feliz Nuevo Año! Happy New Year!

I’ve been spending the holidays in Spain, and I love it. The buildings and the people are beautiful, the food is delicious, and the wine is cheap and tasty. Thanks to the weak dollar, everything is more expensive but it’s definitely well worth it! So far I’ve been able to hit up Madrid and Barcelona. Both cities are gorgeous, though I think it’s safe to say that Barcelona has more charm.

What’s common to both cities, though, are their amazing public transportation systems. The subway and buses are fast, clean, inexpensive, and run on time.

One of the best things about Barcelona’s Metro and buses is that there are signs indicating when the next train or bus is arriving. They’re incredibly accurate too–by the time the clock gets to zero, for example, the train will have stopped at the front of the platform. Similar systems back in the United States–in the few places that they do exist–are woefully inaccurate. The Washington, DC Metro has timers, but oftentimes the times fluctuate massively and trains hardly ever arrive when they say they will.

The T in Boston has been under renovations for years, and one of the things that they have installed in many stations has been electronic signboards. When I first saw them, I assumed that they would display when the next train would be arriving, like in Barcelona or Washington. But after they started working, they simply displayed the date and time as well as captions to announcements. Why oh why, MBTA, didn’t you install a train tracking system?

Train tracking systems are a necessary part of any modern public transportation system. They allow users to have a good idea of how long it will take to get to their destination, and helps reduce the annoyances of having to wait for the next train or bus. One of the biggest criticisms about the T is that trains run infrequently. Indeed, you can easily spend 15 minutes at Park Street waiting for the next D-Line train. Knowing when the next train will arrive will surely make it easier to plan around these delays and will also make it a less stressful experience. This would undoubtedly increase ridership on public transportation, and help the MBTA get out of its financial hole.

Long-distance trains in Spain are also excellent. Renfe, Spain’s bigger and better version of Amtrak, has an extensive network and an impressive high-speed fleet. The high-speed AVE train, for example, makes the roughly 400 mile journey in about three hours at a speed of 186 mph. It’s also very inexpensive–the same round trip costs roughly 80 Euro, or $120.

Contrast this to Amtrak’s “high speed” Acela trains that run between Boston and Washington, DC. While the Acela has a maximum speed of 150 mph, its average speed on this journey is only 72 mph. This is due to an antiquated track and catenary system, as well as various local speed and safety regulations. Thus, the travel time for the approximately 450-mile trip is roughly 6.5 hours. The cost of a roundtrip is about $350. Thus, a journey of a similar distance in the US takes twice as long and costs three times as much than in Spain.

Our antiquated, unreliable, and expensive transportation systems need to be brought into the modern age. It’ll be expensive, no doubt, to upgrade our subways and buses and to develop a viable high speed rail network. But the investments we make today will pay their dividends in the future, and will help our nation overcome its unsustainable addiction to environmentally irresponsible modes of transportation. Thankfully, we finally have a president that supports the development of a high speed rail system. Let’s hope that this support translates into widespread action.

Happy Election Day, everyone!

Today Massachusetts voters go to the polls to vote for their choice in the Senate primary election. This is an extremely important election, not just because it comes at a time when Congress is considering major health care reform, but also because it was previously occupied by Sen. Ted Kennedy, the lion of the Senate.

Despite the importance of this election, turnout has been anemic. I just voted at the Alexander Hamilton School, where I was one of two voters. Yes, I did vote in the middle of the day, but where are the retirees and others who do not work during the day? According to the Boston Globe, by noon, only about 24,000 people, or 6% of registered voters, had cast their ballots.

Come on, MA voters—exercise your right to vote! Just because this state is reliably liberal does not mean that who becomes our next US Senator does not matter. While the four Democratic candidates are strong progressives, they would all bring different leadership styles and focuses to the Senate should they be elected—and these are things that could profoundly affect not only MA, but the United States in general.

So, this is my final plea to voters registered in Massachusetts: please vote today. Though it’s a quick and easy process, your vote in this election carries so much weight. We must all honor Sen. Kennedy’s legacy by voting today, and choosing his worthy successor.

By Kristoffer Munden –

Late Saturday night, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009, which brings our country one step closer to achieving quality, affordable health coverage for every American.  Like millions thousands hundreds tens several others across the country, I stayed in to watch the momentous voting take place.  It was political drama at its finest—watching the vote tally edge up slowly to the magic 218, waiting for the final uncommitted Democrats to register their votes.

Surprisingly, a lone Republican chose to vote for the health care reform bill—Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao (R-LA).  Cao’s vote was courageous—he set aside partisan politics to vote on the side of history, and more importantly, on the side of Americans everywhere who desperately need health insurance reform.  It’s truly refreshing to see a Republican who’s actually willing to view legislation rationally and from the standpoint of what the country needs, rather than what astroturfers and talking heads think we need.

While the passage of the bill is a tremendous step in the right direction, to ensure its passage entailed the inclusion of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.  The Stupak-Pitts amendment bans any private insurer that provides coverage for abortions from participating in the new health insurance exchange.  This means that some women would have to purchase insurance outside of the exchange, effectively discriminating against those who are able to afford health insurance otherwise (read: poor and lower-middle class women).

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment needlessly takes abortion rights many steps backward.  Further, the stated purpose of the amendment—to provide the use of federal funds for abortions—is already achieved through the Hyde Amendment, which was passed more than 30 years ago in 1976.

One of the biggest criticisms of Democratic plans to reform health insurance launched by conservatives has been that government bureaucrats would be placed in between patients and their doctors.  Ironically, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment does just that.  In fact, abortion is the only legal medical procedure that is singled out in the Affordable Health Care for America Act for rationing and unnecessary government intervention.

Thankfully, we are still waiting for the Senate to move on its version of a health insurance reform bill.  I hope that Senators will have a the level-headedness to be able to reject any provision similar to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, and that it continues to respect existing laws in place for more than 30 years.

We can’t let abortion hijack the larger debate on health insurance reform.  Congress should focus on what can bring us together and not on what will inevitably divide us.  It should pass a bill that will provide affordable, quality health insurance coverage to all Americans without being mired in questions over fundamental women’s rights.

By Kristoffer Munden -

The Observer on Tuesday, Oct. 27, published the most despicable, misinformed, bigoted, and malicious cartoon I have seen in my life. The purpose of any news source is to encourage debate—not to stifle it through the publication of blatantly incendiary images.

The cartoon in question depicts an animalistic form with gruff hair and a snout holding a tube. The tube is between a pair of feet and funnels to a barrel that states, “Pro Choice ≠ Pro Abortion,” ostensibly filled with some sort of biological material.

Everyone, including whoever may have drawn this cartoon and made the decision to publish it, has the right to express their own opinion. They do not, however, have the right to publish an image that demonizes their ideological opposites. The cartoon portrays those who support the right to choose as something less than human (it’s impossible to tell exactly what the form holding the tube is). It also debases the position of those who support a woman’s right to choose by equating it with a desire to crudely terminate fetuses.

If this cartoon assumes that those who are pro-choice are less then human, then how can we expect any sort of informed debate? Should we just continue to take cheap jabs at the other side? Should we simply reduce the anti-choice position to a movement that seeks to subjugate women and force them to carry the children of rapists? Should progressive publications depict a cartoon that is similarly offensive? One problem—at the time of my writing this, I simply do not want to even suggest such a thing.

Obviously, this cartoon aims to be satirical. In this regard, it falls flat on its face. The point of any satire piece is to be thought-provoking. This cartoon, though, only goes for shock value.

The final troubling aspect of the cartoon is the fact that whoever drew it has refused to take responsibility for his or her own work. The cartoon is discreetly placed on the bottom right corner of page 15. I also tried to find the cartoon on The Observer’s Web site—can’t find it. This implies cowardice on the part of the illustrator. Own up to what you’ve drawn in every way—if debate is what you seek, then let’s talk.

The motto of The Observer is, “There is no freedom without the truth.” This cartoon has propagated a lie—a lie that has enslaved debate.

Or, maybe the editors of The Observer just didn’t see it—like last time.

*Views expressed in blog posts are not necessarily those of  The Gavel.

I work every day to move BC for­ward — not just to bring my own BC experience to new heights, but more importantly, that of others. If we fail to move BC forward during our ten­ures here, then we will have failed to heed the call that we all hear on Lin­den Lane during our freshman years: “Go set the world aflame.”

One of the ways that we can move BC forward is to openly explore and discuss ideas — not just ideas that we agree with, but most importantly ideas that we do not agree with. By discussing these ideas, we raise the level of debate on campus and draw in all members of the BC commu­nity.

Indeed, we’ve seen the sour ef­fects that a lack of discussion causes. Last month, ignorant news articles and columns led to an explosion of debate over race relations on campus. We must discuss both sides of the question, “Who is responsible for ra­cial trends on campus?” In doing so, we all come to a greater understand­ing of who we are as individuals and who we are as a BC community.

It’s also imperative that the ad­ministration completely embraces the desire for students to explore ideas. Overall, the administration is ex­tremely supportive. There are many times, however, when the administra­tion lets us down.

The administration refuses to al­low balanced debate on issues such as a woman’s right to choose. Anti-choice speakers frequently speak on campus, whilst pro-choice speakers — if they are even approved in the first place — must be balanced by the presence of an anti-choice speaker.

We must all engage in discussion and debate to decide for ourselves where we stand on an issue, and come to realize why we believe in what we do.

Yes, we have now acknowledged that talk is important. But how do we facilitate all this talking?

First, go to the events that various organizations host. Every day at BC, there are myriad panels and lectures to attend. And if you’re in one club, be sure to attend the events that other clubs organize — including those that you might disagree with or know nothing about.

Second, stay abreast of what’s happening on campus. There are amazing events that happen that very few people happen to know about (did you know that October is Filipino-American History Month? Or that Ariel Levy was on campus?). Check the UGBC and BC calendars regu­larly, and take an extra minute while walking through the O’Neill atrium to peruse the flyers. Read BC’s news sources — “The Heights,” “The Ob­server,” “The Chronicle” and (most significantly!) “The Gavel.”

Third, take what you glean from the events and news sources and mul­tiply it — pay it forward, if you will. If what you learn in a room stays in that room, then what’s the point? Talk about it with you friends and roommates. Ask questions in class. If you’re in a club, try to organize an event representing your point of view. Write letters to the editor, for­ward news articles, and comment on articles online.

Fourth, and most importantly, the administration should embrace the fact that students want to engage. This means that it should adopt a fair student organizations events policy — one that doesn’t impose undue restrictions on speakers and one that allows all viewpoints to be discussed and represented.