Democratic Lawmakers Asked about “Hot Sluts” and “Hand Jobs”
By Saxon Baird - Jun 26th, 2008 at 3:33 pmA conference call with two Democratic lawmakers to announce and explain a new law that will cut student loan interest rates was cut short today by obscene sexual questions asked by four individuals claiming to be journalists. The call started off smoothly with Representative George Miller, Senator Sherrod Brown, and U.S. PIRG Higher Education Associate Luke Swarthout speaking for roughly five minutes about the new law going into effect July 1st and the advantages it holds for students.
When the phone call was opened up for questions, the operator announced a caller claiming to be from the radio show Money Talks. The “journalist” proceeded to ask an obscene and offensive question: “Where in the next ten years do you see college students getting more hot sluts?” The representatives of the conference call seemed dumbfounded and not entirely sure if it was a slip up on the caller’s part or a serious question. When it became apparent that the caller was being rude and not asking about the new law, the call was dropped and the operator moved on.
Unfortunately, the same thing happened with the next caller: “Senator, how can we get blind people to stop leaving crumbs everywhere?” Noticeably shocked, the representatives again refused to answer the question. The caller reacted by angrily yelling, “No! You will answer the question!”
Then it happened again with the next two callers. One asked how we could increase the percentage of hand jobs, while the the other queried about similar sexual exploits.
So far, no one knows who the pranksters were. Howard Stern-esque impersonators? A plot by the children of conservative figureheads bored and looking for a good joke? Who knows. When we figure out the details we’ll let you know.
Regardless of the pranksters’ identities, their tactics did succeed in stopping any serious dialogue between the press and the lawmakers on this new and important act aimed at lowering the cost of higher education.
The law will lower unsubsidized federal loan interest rates to 6.0% from 6.8%, increase the Pell grant, offer debt-relief to graduates who work in public services for ten years or more, and extend the period in which repayment must begin. Full details on the bill can be found at the New America Foundation.
Here’s the question I was unfortunately unable to ask: How does this law offset or directly respond to the rising price of attending a university? While the law will certainly ease the cost of college, it does nothing to offset universities from raising their prices to attend and the cost of books. A lower interest rate will help cut the costs of monthly payments and make it easier for future students to pay for school, but if the actual cost of college increases then we are simply repaying more money slower. This being the case, the law seems to be a short-term solution that does very little to reach low-income young Americans seeking to attend universities.
The law will help but it will not do enough until college booksellers and the universities are addressed directly.
good point. also, student loans should have a 0% interest rate– there’s absolutley no reason why someone who can’t afford to hand over their parent’s credit card on the first day of college should then end up having to pay more money back in interest on their student loans to the GOVERNMENT. completely ridiculous.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:59 pmIf there’s any reason to interrupt such important dialogue, it’s crude sexual humor. Bravo pranksters, and bravo lawmakers. You have succeeded in superficially addressing the problem so that you may brag to your constituents without actually attacking the deeper issues.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:24 pmUnfortunate that the prank callers caused a loss in momentum with such an important issue…
June 26th, 2008 at 4:28 pmNot only do the above issues need to be addressed, but each state needs to take a serious look at non-residency tuition vs. residency tuition. If a student chooses to attend (or is accepted to) a particular state’s university, moves to that state, works within that state, and gives back to that community by registering their vehicle, shopping there and eventually filing TAXES, they should not be penalized with 30% or 40% tuition hike. Especially for some rediculous reason such as they did not live in the state six months BEFORE they started college there or do not have a local phone number. They certainly don’t get a “better” education for their extra fees…
Despite presumptive proof that says otherwise, I smell a Young America’s Foundation plot to disrupt the progressive movement.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:39 pmSRSLY. best story evaaar.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:52 pmI’m surprised that Congress has done precious little to hold academia to account. Why does an undergraduate education cost such ridiculous sums of money? How could such institutions, whose faculties are overwhelmingly Democrat, put the screws to the poor and middle class? If the academy tends to vote Democrat, it sure does act Republican.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:52 amI can’t believe these guys disrupted the calls. My Kidd Chris would never do that.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:46 pmIt may be indecent and is certainly stupid and highly offensive, but asking about “hot sluts” isn’t obscene.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:58 pmThe people moderating the teleconference need to figure out how these pranksters got ahead of other real journalists, or the lawmakers need to get another teleconference service, but a new weapon in GOP dirty tricks.
But other commenters are right. If Pells are not doubled or colleges required to keep costs down (perhaps states actually funding their schools from taxes rather than tuition), then higher education now required for all decent employment will be unaffordable.
PS–Those aren’t really loans BY the government, they are loans from PRIVATE banks merely INSURED by the government. Those private banks make money coming and going–origination fees, interest from the borrowers, government money if they are defaulted. THey’ll be profitable even if the rate is cut less than 1%.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:41 am