We need SG reform
My deepest thanks to the Texan's editors for the Feb. 15 Viewpoint, "The Al Gore of SG." Zack Hall's reason for not running - whoever's got the most money to blow on T-shirts and A-frames wins - mirrors the reason I had to break up my opposition party last year. My would-be opponent, the Advance ticket, had already rented out a cabin with their fundraising bucks. To see that Hall, a far more qualified candidate than I was, is being shut out for the same reasons sickens me.
What does the party system do, besides ensure that establishment tickets can pool exorbitant sums? In the last five years of the ticket system, only 15 people who weren't on the majority ticket have won seats in the assembly. SG reps frequently say that elections are open to all, and that if we want representation and choice, all we need to do is pay our $20 and jump in. But we all know that SG elections are less about issues than about which student organizations you've got in your pocket and how much merchandise you print. Keshav Rajagopalan and Frankie Shulkin are great candidates to run Student Government, but let's remember that to achieve true representation on campus, people with good ideas shouldn't be precluded just because they can't raise thousands of dollars under the banner of a ticket.
Adam Avramescu English and rhetoric senior
We need SG reform II
I want to thank the editors of the Texan for giving Zack Hall the praise that he deserves ("The Al Gore of SG," Feb. 15). When I hear the words "student leader," I don't think of a bunch of SG schmucks with offices; I think of Zack Hall.
I've worked with Hall off-and-on with a number of projects and can say that he does all of his hard work for students simply because it's the right thing to do.
I'd also like to echo Hall's sentiments. I pushed very hard last semester when it was time to start organizing for Hall to make a run, and I can say that he put plenty of effort into trying to organize a campaign. The problem is that the current system of tickets rewards candidates for bringing on any and every loser they can stick on the ticket, just so that they can spend more money and gain the votes of friends. This is not conducive to real leadership.
The funding mechanism of SG makes it such that student organizations fear they will lose their funding if they give their support to an independent ticket. The SG election code needs reform, and that reform must come from people outside of SG. This is the only way we can expect to see representation from real leaders such as Zack Hall.
Tony McDonald Chairman Emeritus Young Conservatives of Texas Economics and government junior
Don't let Bush watch your bag
This Valentine's Day was a great day in American politics. The House refused to pass President George Bush's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill with retroactive telecom immunity. Thank god that they did. That fact that the telecommunication companies would even need immunity by default means that they did commit some sort of crime at the bidding of Bush's government. And if one is to take Bush's own views by refusing to allow a FISA bill without the immunity, that shows he is getting in the way of fighting terrorism and blocking a bill that he says is "essential to protect the lives of Americans." This, by his own definition, is aiding the terrorists. Can we all finally agree that this man is a power-hungry hypocrite who is so inept and corrupt that he is not even trustworthy enough to ask to watch your bookbag for a couple of minutes? To all those people who said "no" to that question, do the rest of the country a favor and don't vote this November or ever again, because your enabling of this kind of megalomaniac is the worst possible thing for this country. Remember, the greatest threats to peace, prosperity and freedom come not as some open evil declaring itself to the world, but in the disguise of a great protector asking for extraordinary powers "to better protect us."
Jason Michael Actuarial science senior
Response resoultion II
Riddle me this, editorial board: If the Freshman Leadership Organization has such an impact on Student Government elections and who runs, why was I not bred to be SG President over Andrew Solomon? Your view on FLO and SG ("May it be resolved?" Feb. 13) is completely ridiculous. In the past, yes, FLO has been an integral part of elections, back in the day when there actually were real elections.
SG President Solomon and Vice President Nicole Trinh were not members of FLO, and if they were, their idea of being a member is attending one meeting during campaigns. I did not know either one of these individuals until election time in 2005 and I was a member of FLO in 2004 from the first meeting. These two had little to do with FLO and are currently in high leadership positions within SG.
Maybe this editorial board should take a step back and realize that not all members of FLO pursue positions within SG, but rather use the organization as a stepping stone to find leadership positions outside of SG. For instance, the station manager of TSTV was in FLO his freshman year, but I bet FLO had nothing to do with his involvement at the TV station. Or how about one of the co-chairs for Dance Marathon; he was in FLO his freshman year and never held a position in SG. How about the historian of Orange Jackets? I do recall sitting in the Glenn Maloney room with her every Thursday evening our freshman year. The purpose of FLO is to help freshmen become involved on campus through promoting community service, leadership, involvement and fellowship. Yes, it is an entity of SG, but mainly for funding purposes. FLO is not a "breeding ground" for future SG leaders. That's what Longhorn Legislative Aides is for. I should know - I was one.
Your view is also tainted when stating that SG "comprises a network of students who have worked closely together throughout their college years." And if my joining Student Government was influenced by my older sister serving as former SG President Katie King's secretary to the assembly, then I guess I am guilty of partaking in an "incestuous system."
Katie E. Sowa Pre-med, radio-television-film senior SG Two Year At-Large representative
Holiday equality
Jillian Sheridan's argument against Black History Month ("Black History Month: government sanctioned racism," Feb. 13) reads like a column from The Onion. She argues that black people and women should be insulted by the duration of mere month-long designations, citing that February is especially insulting only being 29 days long. Examining history, politics and the arts from different perspectives is much of what a broad education is about, so why shouldn't UT recognize these months? Following her logic, we wouldn't have any holidays. Only one day to celebrate independence? To placate Jillian, I recommend designating a month for "unity" - but we better make it one with the whole 31 days.
Aaron Bernstein Research associate Department of Physics
Holiday equality II
Jillian Sheridan makes it seem as if February and March are the only months that the government permits black history and the contribution of women to American history to be taught and studied. If that were the case, the existence of Sheridan's column would have been justified, but that is far from the truth. In fact, UT offers history courses each semester that focus on blacks' and women's contributions to American history as well as contributions of other groups. Perhaps Sheridan finds these courses to be racist as well? The real injustice would be to integrate the complex and profound contributions of these groups into a general history course in which they could only be covered superficially.
Also, how is simply classifying historical figures by race or gender counted as racism or sexism? If the government somehow claimed that the contributions of blacks or women were less significant due to their race or gender, then that would be wrong, but how is the government doing that by giving these groups months to celebrate their significance in American history? It has always been my understanding that these designated months were designed in order to recognize and raise awareness for the specified group. They are not divisive months, as Sheridan believes, because the teaching and study of black history or women's history do not cease after the allotted month. To believe that would be like thinking people only care about the environment on Earth Day or people only appreciate veterans on Veterans Day. These months are periods of celebration for the groups that make up our diverse society, in which extra attention can be given in addition to the study of them that takes place year-round.
David R. Alviola Biology senior
Where's the payoff?
Daniel Earnest is pulling the old bait and switch on you, again ("A lesson in Bushonomics," Feb. 13). You think he's writing about Bush's economic program, when what he's actually writing about is his stupid conservative idea that government should be limited to national security and subsidizing private enterprise with public dollars.
Daniel, the real problem is the elephant in the room, and that elephant is not the symbol of your party - it's the ridiculous amount of money we spend on defense every year. There is another way in which Bush is like Reagan, but Earnest seems to have overlooked it: Defense spending under Bush has risen to its highest levels since World War II. Why? What industrialized nation or nations are we currently engaged in a war with that require such high levels of spending?
Here is a solution to the government spending problem and also a way to boost our economy: Cut the defense budget in half. We would still spend more than most of the rest of the industrialized world combined on defense. The rest of you cheap knock-off campus conservatives like to complain about how "incompetent" your government is, but you rarely ever mention the complete lack of accountability concerning defense spending and the incompetence or complete malfeasance in the awarding of contracts. Billions, if not trillions, have been wasted by the bureaucrats in the Pentagon that could have been used to build and staff hospitals, libraries and schools - things that provide a social and economic return far greater than the initial investment.
Here's one for you brainy business school types: What exactly is the return on our investment in bombs and bullets? I might actually have some respect for you if you could quantify that for me.
Jon Pearson UT Alum
Where's the payoff? II
Wednesday's op-ed from Daniel Earnest was, as usual, full of poor reasoning. He contends that ending social welfare programs is the way out of deficit spending but ignores the fact that corporate welfare is two to three times that of social welfare. Does Exxon really need welfare? How about ConAgra? Eli Lily? No, they don't need it. Maybe Earnest doesn't believe that his supply-side dreams are, in fact, dreams. Maybe he should ask Warren Buffet about supply-side economics or tax cuts for the wealthy. Would Earnest believe it coming from the third-wealthiest man in the world? And the Reagan era isn't the panacea Earnest has been led to believe. How do I know? I was 13 in 1980, and I lived through it. The Clinton years were as good, if not better, than the Reagan years, economically speaking, and they were not based on supply-side economics.
The main reasons for our economic troubles today are Bush's economic and foreign policies. Reduced regulation and oversight of banking, as well as the commoditization of mortgages, are largely responsible for the housing crisis. Cutting taxes and increasing spending for the war in Iraq, corporate welfare and earmarks have bled the treasury dry. Earnest probably thinks the poor are at fault for being poor, but the fact is that America is no longer a place for upward social mobility; Europe is, especially those godless Scandinavian countries. Earnest says he's a Christian, yet everything he espouses is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. Helping those who are less fortunate and loving one another is where it's at, not screwing the poor to have more. Ending funding for social programs, especially education assistance, pre-natal care and child healthcare, will do nothing more than insure that the poor stay poor.
Mark Phillips Biochemistry senior
Unfit argument
David Steil's rant about the Young Conservatives of Texas seems like the kind of argument you would see on some MySpace blog, not a distinguished paper such as the Texan ("YCT reinforcing its own stereotype," The Firing Line, Feb. 13). He attempts to discredit a speaker the YCT invited simply because he doesn't support the absurdity of affirmative action. Steil claims the speaker, Ward Connerly, is "doing everything he can to prevent blacks from getting a fair shake." So, not giving groups of people an advantage over others is somehow unfair? Using this logic I could form support for a policy that granted certain religious groups easier entry into the University, After all, we don't see many Zoroastrians around campus. Or better yet, how about anyone with red hair? I'm sure they're a minority. Anything that creates a higher-level, liberal education filled with equality, right?
Even worse, Steil fabricates a YCT mission statement that claims their purpose is to suppress minorities and further the supremacy of the white male. I do not claim to know YCT's principles, as I am not a member, but when one insinuates that anyone who may hold conservative viewpoints is inherently a hardcore evangelical, some kind of neo-nazi white supremacist and an advocate of slavery, I stop listening. It's exactly this sort of collectivism that opponents of affirmative action are against, as no matter what imaginary labels you give people, in the end the individual is all that matters. As the economist Thomas Sowell said, "If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today."
Micah Scheler Mechanical engineering junior
Be the first to comment on this article!