The good, the bad, the ugly
My mind tires from reading all this political dreck that clogs the Opinion page, and the March 22 issue is one of the worst I've seen. While there are some nice and thoughtful gems such as the Viewpoint ("Keeping speech free on campus") on free speech and Melody Fisher's Firing Line ("But what did Schlosser say?"), others such as Esther Wang's column on conservatives and Emily Cadik's Firing Line ("YCT needs a regime change") do nothing to contribute to meaningful dialogue.
This is a university, not a playground. Political debate will be better off by engaging in discourse in a civil and respectful manner instead of broadly painting simplistic caricatures of the opposition.
Naive as it may be, it is time for those who wish to express their views to not use the Opinion page as a sounding board for their hatred of those who don't agree with them. I want to open the paper and see an educated and civil argument, not someone's attempt to be the next Bill O'Reilly or Al Franken.
Andrew Yen Economics freshman
Through the smoke and mirrors
Thank you, Krystal De Los Santos, for calling a spade a spade. For too long, apologists for illegal immigration have attempted to skew the issue by euphemistically referring to lawbreakers as "undocumented workers," as if they forgot all their papers at the border.
Make no mistake, folks, the issue of illegals gaining access to our institutions of higher education has very clear implications. First of all, it punishes those who legally reside in the state of Texas. It makes perfect sense that because there are only so many students a university can accept, each slot should be filled by a legal American citizen or a select international student - the demand for an education is such that this will occur, if permitted.
Secondly, this is yet another insult to those who obeyed U.S. immigration laws and went through the entire process in a lawful manner. How do you think it makes honest immigrants feel when they see illegals being rewarded in this manner?
Lastly, and most importantly, by facilitating access to our public education system for illegal aliens, we send the signal that we do not care about our immigration laws. That is heard loud and clear not only by those who do not have the courtesy to obey our laws, but also those who would seek to do us great harm. If you don't think al-Qaida and Hamas will notice porous borders and other points of entry, then think again.
Cooper Day History senior
CR wants truth
When I wrote into the Texan in January of 2003, words were put in my mouth to create controversy. Now, the Texan is concocting words for my fellow CR officer, Sachiv Mehta. Standing by its fictitious story, the Texan shows its maliciousness and poor reporting. "Fair" to the Texan means give Republicans OK coverage one day and invent stories to bash them the next. The Texan is eluding honesty!
Here is the truth about a Schlosser walk-out: During a CR officers' brainstorming session, I suggested this option to send a message to the Rhetoric Department (RD), who clearly did not choose him or his book for literary merit.
Look - no matter your political thoughts, let's agree: A public university's role is to educate on subject matter; in this case, English. Pushing one political side to "challenge views" (RD Director Ruszkiewicz), no matter the viewpoint's leaning, is not the purpose of the required course.
Had a student organization brought Schlosser, CR would never have considered a walk-out. After realizing that we would unintentionally thwart student efforts (the DSC), CR decided against a walk-out. The Texan's ticket claim is absolutely false. The Texan should apologize for again putting words into someone's mouth to suit the paper's own purpose.
CR decided to hand out fast food gift certificates and flyers to protest the RD, showing the other side; defending free enterprise and companies that do things including start the Ronald McDonald House, lead world-wide humanitarian efforts, provide millions of jobs and donate millions in scholarships.
Bryan Pravda Architecture senior Executive director of public relations, College Republicans at Texas
Thanking Wang
I must say I almost feel guilty writing a Firing Line in response to a column ("Wang re-evaluates her liberal values," March 22) written by an apparent second-grader. But I would just like to point out that Esther Wang, ironically, embodies everything in her article that she attempts to criticize about conservatives. She generalizes conservatives to the point of prejudice, she is intolerant of other viewpoints which may contrast with her own, and worst, she carries out her critique in an incredibly unintelligent, petty way.
Thank you, Esther, for writing that column, because in so doing you became the best example any conservative could ever hope to give of just how unprogressive, closed minded and outright mean-spirited some liberals really can be. I would have been ashamed if a conservative had written it.
Todd B. Willis Petroleum engineering senior
Thanking Wang II
I would like to thank Esther Wang ("Wang re-evaluates her liberal values," March 22) for reminding me why I get so strung out emotionally during election years.
I consider my political views, for the most part, to be left-of-center, but even I felt that Wang's March 22 article was over-the-top and uncalled-for. I do not believe that launching a barrage of ad hominem attacks against the Republican Party and its supporters is any way to carry on a reasonable dialogue about politics in America - especially at a high-class university such as our own, where we respect the ability to put forth an argument that is well-reasoned and elegantly expressed. Wang commits a standard error by conflating the views of the average conservative with those of Pat Robertson - talk about reducing the whole to one of its parts! Of the conservatives I know, there are far more who consider Robertson a bigot (as I do) than there are who have an unyielding respect for his views on society.
Categorizing conservatives as racists, sexists and proponents of corporate greed only serves to polarize and divide us. I think there are enough people in Washington who do that. Can't we strive for better than that here?
C.L. Patterson Mathematics graduate student
Hanak errs
The column by Chad Hanak in The Daily Texan on March 22 ("Unemployment: A closer look") centered on the claim that the current unemployment situation is much better than Kerry and CNN are reporting. Hanak cites the household survey conducted by the BLS, which suggests that unemployment is down significantly. While it is true that the household survey numbers show much healthier employment than is depicted by the payroll survey numbers used by Kerry and CNN, the results of these two surveys have been diverging significantly.
The argument that unemployment is much lower than generally reported has been echoing around the right wing media for months, but it has failed to gain traction, mostly because it just isn't true. According to congressional testimony of Alan Greenspan from Feb. 11, "I wish I could say the household survey were the more accurate ... Everything we've looked at suggests that it's the payroll data which are the series which you have to follow."
That the payroll survey better reflects the state of the economy is neither new nor controversial. The New York Times ran an article on Feb. 22 describing the difference between the surveys and the reasons the payroll survey data are more accurate. On March 12, also in the New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote a powerful rebuttal to this argument. Nobody's arguing that the two surveys tell very different stories, but one of them is right and one of them is wrong. Unfortunately, the survey upon which Hanak relies is wrong.
Stephen Palmer LBJ School of Public Affairs Graduate student
Conclusion off mark
I'm not sure what to make of Chad Hanak's Monday column "Unemployment: A closer look." On the one hand, Hanak correctly notes that the U.S. unemployment rate fell from 6.3 percent in June, 2003 to 5.6 percent in February, 2004 and that total employment, as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Household Survey, increased by 449,000 jobs since March, 2001, making today's total employment the highest in history. And Hanak correctly notes that current "family net worth and the market value of all U.S. mutual funds have surpassed the records reached in early 2000."
Hanak marshals all of this evidence to conclude that "the current economy is strong and getting stronger." But Hanak's conclusion is highly debatable. According to a report on Dec. 3, 2003 by Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation, federal spending in 2003 topped $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II, making George W. Bush a bigger spender than even Democrats such as Bill Clinton and LBJ. And unlike Clinton, Bush's party controls both houses of Congress.
Consequently, unless Hanak believes that a nation can spend its way out of a recession, Hanak shouldn't defend Bush's economic program. If Bush really believed in free market capitalism, he would drastically cut both spending and taxes, balance the budget, and pressure Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan to resign. In Greenspan's place, Bush should appoint a Fed chairman who would never maintain artificially low interest rates and would never expand the money supply.
Clark Patterson Special student in liberal arts
Be the first to comment on this article!