Don't steal the spotlight, UDems As the president of the College Republicans at Texas, I feel I must point out the arrogance of Laura Hernandez describing herself as the leader of the largest political organization on campus in her Feb. 21 firing line "Biased math?". This semester we have averaged about the same weekly attendance as the University Democrats, and we have had more people participate in campus-wide events, such as the Valentine's Day "I Heart Voting" event and the Public Engagement Initiative's bipartisan voter drive. Whatever caused Hernandez to believe that her group is head-and-shoulders above any other on campus was not based on fact.
I also feel the need to call out Hernandez for going on TV and claiming that her group organized the Clinton-Obama debate. The UT administration reached out to the candidates and organized the entire thing, and then asked the UDems to provide volunteers who could perform such crucial tasks as taking tickets at the door. They also believed they might look biased for inviting only the Democratic candidates to campus, so they needed a student organization that could nominally be labeled the host (although UT President Bill Powers' decision to sit with the Obama family during the debate makes his motives quite clear). We are not unaccustomed to the UDems exaggerating their accomplishments, and they certainly were given a role in the debate, but to claim credit for organizing that event is simply going too far. Brandon Lighton Government junior UT College Republicans president Article Reference Link An E-week game (of Legos) In response to Derrik Turk's firing line "It's Not L-Week," Feb. 21: I must say that I am appalled at Turk's lack of respect for the legal profession. He contends that lawyers are basically useless and overcomplicate the world. This is an ignorant stance. Useless? A majority of the presidents of the United States were, in fact, lawyers before they took office. However, according to Turk, I suppose that a person such as Thomas Jefferson, who doubled the size of the nation, doesn't matter. Abraham Lincoln, who freed the slaves, is of no consequence because he was not an engineer. Turk mocks the Roman lawyers in their togas, but these men are who shaped the legal system, and in turn, shaped society. He claims that lawyers clog up the courts with frivolous suits, but what about the ones that defend rape victims or keep the giant U.S. businesses in check? I suppose they don't matter because they didn't have a hand in building the Empire State Building. Lawyers are the life-blood of this country, and keep it running smoothly whilst the engineers prance around, playing with their Legos. Jordan Turk History and classics freshman Article Reference Link One last word to our species After reading Vishnu Jyothindran's piece, "Lame letters from engineers," in the Feb. 25 Firing Line, I feel compelled to make a few points in response. We sincerely apologize for causing Jyothindran or anyone else to believe that a sacred public forum has been desecrated. While our firing line article was firmly tongue-in-cheek, Jyothindran makes a grave error by categorizing it as pure "amusement." Of course we know that lawyers are (like everyone else) mostly good people, necessary to society and so on. Please spare us the self-righteous rambling.
But many a truth is spoken in jest. The legal framework and patent system within which engineers operate in America can only be described as "broken." Especially in the realm of software engineering and other dubious "intellectual property," patents on trivial and obvious ideas are making innovation the realm only of the mega-corporations that can afford to hire armies of lawyers to fight the patent "Cold War." Companies exist whose sole source of income is buying up patents and enforcing them through legal action against companies which accidentally infringe upon them.
We also sincerely believe that recruiting young people to the field of engineering is crucial. Technological advance shows no signs of slowing, and it is engineers who will in large part decide our future as a species.
Do not presume that our letter was not intended to provoke "serious and logical debate." We merely chose to use the opportunity afforded by E-week to make a sincere point in a light-hearted tone. We would like to thank The Daily Texan for printing our piece, but take offense at its characterization that it was merely "part of some game" and "childish." Surely not all debate must be totally devoid of good humor. Derrick Turk Mechanical engineering senior Article Reference Link Rick Reed not DA man It is the solemn duty of a district attorney to uphold the laws of our state. This means that, where warranted, the death penalty should be applied. Hooman Hedayati, in his Feb. 25 column "Rick Reed best choice for district attorney," argues that the death penalty is OK, and he even prefers that a district attorney impose his or her progressive agenda on a non-political office. Anyone promising a blanket outcome of leniency for murderers is clearly not a viable candidate for such a venerated and duty-bound office. One of the requirements of the job is equal application of the law, and someone who chooses to ignore the law simply because of a certain voting-bloc is a dangerous choice. According to the 2007 Texas Crime Poll, 74 percent of Texas citizens support capital punishment. Who is Rick Reed to ignore the voices of almost three-fourths of the state? We must always remember that public policy was meant to be shaped by legislators, not an activist justice system. The predominance of legislative power must remain the hallmark of our freedom, as the writers of the U.S. Constitution intended. Edward C. Oden IV Government sophomore YCT legislative director Article Reference Link Texan servin' up free speech I felt the need to spring to the Texan's defense after reading the egregious ramblings of some of The Firing Line in the Feb. 25 issue of the Texan. Right or wrong in their endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I sincerely could care less. But this decision has been painted as being unrepresentative of the student body's feelings. It is not the role of an independent newspaper to bow to the will of the masses, even if those masses are its own readership. I would hazard a guess that people such as Rupert Murdoch would be more than happy to have newspapers endorsing candidates and ideas which meet their approval as owners and operators of the press, but the need to maintain an independent editorial voice is essential in allowing the expression of often unpopular sentiment. Those people who are upset by the endorsement are free to look elsewhere for their fill of banal, campus-laden non-stories if they are so inclined. Perhaps they would be happier simply associating with those who share their common beliefs and interests so they need never hear a dissenting opinion again. Michael Findlater Chemistry and biochemistry graduate student Article Reference Link Puzzled by Texan's endorsement After reading the many angry responses to The Daily Texan's endorsement of Hillary Clinton from last Friday, and the editor's note defending it, I feel it is important to really pick apart what was wrong with the endorsement. Supporting a candidate is a matter of personal choice, but the reasons given for supporting Sen. Clinton were largely illogical. I was struck by the statement that Barack Obama has ignored Austin as a base of liberal support, since he has now held two record-setting rallies in Austin.
In regard to Clinton's acknowledged "abrasiveness," the next president will not be entering a government in which she will need to "scrub away" the grime of the Bush administration. Bush has ignored Republican congressmen for years, and many of them no longer support him. It is essential that we have a democratic president who is open to working with these Republicans, and Clinton's harsh language of "defeating the Republicans" does not show much promise of conciliation. Also, Clinton's plan for withdrawal from Iraq cannot possibly "ensure a gradual transition to stability in the Middle East" - at this point, no plan could do that.
Lastly, the argument that "Obama's current focus is geared toward winning the nomination" ignores that Obama scored telling points on John McCain in the debate last Thursday. In its post-debate coverage, CNN pointed out that Obama was looking beyond the nomination to winning the presidential election. If The Daily Texan is going to support a different candidate than most students, their justification should not fly in the face of logic. Alex Beard History junior
The Texan guilty of girl power? I recently asked a 40-something female friend who she was going to vote for. She said Hillary. I asked why. She put her militant fist in the air and said, "girl power." And alas, Claire Harlin, The Daily Texan editor-in-chief is a female.
I am a 67-year-old liberal white woman and I cast my vote for Barack Obama on the first day of early voting. I did this for two reasons: He believes in the same things I do about the same things that are important to me, such as the war, healthcare, education and the economy, and because he is young enough and hasn't been in politics long enough to be truly corrupted by the Washington establishment.
I am not a member of the 18-to-24-year-old demographic, nor do I fit the profile of an older woman.
I hope Obama chooses Bill Richardson to be his running mate. Carol Stepp UT alum Texan takes on Obamaton mobs Bravo! I'm so proud of my old alma mater (health services, '59) for the endorsement of Sen. Clinton. It's good to know the Texan is not made up of mindless automatons, and is unable to be swayed by mob control! I'm sure you've taken a lot of heat from the Obamatons. Marilyn Kelly UT alum
A truly non-partisan university? The decision by Student Government to co-sponsor the Bill Clinton rally was not approved by the assembly. Nowhere in the internal rules are executive privileges granted to the president, vice president or anyone else. Last I checked, the assembly members represent the will of the student body, and if they are not even given the opportunity to express that will (much less to be consulted on a decision that involves giving SG approval), I would like to know who was crowned king.
Next, are SG leaders really naive enough to believe that Clinton is going to come here and not give a single endorsement of his wife? President Clinton's speech will consist of a discussion of issues that America faces and how Hillary can fix them, according the Hillary Clinton campaign office - case in point.
I understand that, as an institution of higher education in such a political environment, it is important for the University to foster these kinds of opportunities. However, at a time when this particular Texas primary is so influential to not only the nomination but the general election, the University and SG need to use much more discretion when making these decisions. For example, hosting a general election debate is a non-partisan way for the administration to bring a great opportunity to the students. Wait, that idea sounds familiar. Gordon Moore Government senior
Be the first to comment on this article!