Crying out against gossip Regarding Ana McKenzie's thoughtless article about the SG elections ("Empower takes all but one seat in SG elections," Feb. 29): I have never felt so uninformed after reading a Texan article. The unnecessary comment singling out the losing candidate's emotional response left me wondering what the original intent of the article was. I would think that a front page article ostensibly reporting the results of an election that affects the entire student body would be more informative than pejorative. When did The Daily Texan become a gossip blog comparable to PerezHilton.com? An article written after an election should inform readers what they have to look forward to in their newly elected assembly. This article did not even have one platform idea or offer any substantial bit of information for any elected independent or Empower candidate! When I read the Texan, I want news; if I want gossip then it is my choice to visit PerezHilton.com or Us.com. Allison Gappelberg History junior
Shame on you, Tran Aside from the fact that John Tran's column, "Empower independent SG candidates," Feb. 28, lacked both evidence and persuasion, it was empirically inaccurate. The second sentence, stating that Keshav Rajagopalan was uncontested, was simply not true: Matt Li was also a presidential candidate. Additionally, John claimed that many on the Empower ticket were a continuation of this year's assembly.
Actually, 23 of the 39 candidates on the ticket did not hold a position in SG this year. If by "many" he meant "less than half," then he was correct.
Regarding the debate, the fact that half of the attendants were Empower candidates only bodes well for the ticket. Given that certain races were uncontested, Empower's overwhelming presence represented members' genuine desire to change the perception that SG is a bunch of disengaged "resume-padders."
Tran also stated that the independent candidates had a "record of concrete results." It is not surprising that he failed to mention these results, considering how poorly researched the entire article was, as well as the fact that half of the independents were freshmen. Even if they did have the "vision" he mentioned, they were unlikely to have already accomplished anything related to it.
Many UT students are disenchanted with the lack of competition during elections. However, this weak and thoughtless article offered no solutions to this problem, nor did it provide any substantial reason to vote for either side. If students weren't apathetic before, certainly they are now. Tressa Westerman Government junior
Shame on you, Tran II John Tran's "Empower independent SG candidates," Feb. 28, made me wonder why someone who so passionately seems to promote change in SG relies solely on an opinion article to do so. Like the majority of students who cry for change in our current system, no one seems to take an active initiative for change. People like Keshav Rajagopalan and Frankie Shulkin do. Both have been involved in SG since their freshman year and are undoubtedly the two most qualified individuals for their respective offices.
Their vision for SG, one that people like John Tran will not be able to carelessly vilify, is one worth standing behind. Keshav and Frankie spent well over six months hand-picking each candidate to run on the Empower ticket, ensuring the most qualified students who truly care about the state of the University were included in next year's assembly. Rajagopalan was right to rate SG 4.5 out of 5 stars. In fact, he could have even given it 5 stars. SG does so much for students that goes unnoticed. If students would attend SG meetings or even simply sign up for the newsletter, they would come to this realization. I can comfortably say that the student body will certainly be Empowered next year under the Rajagopalan and Shulkin administration. And thank you to the Solomons, Davissons and Gilstraps that left the FLO debate early to attend an important meeting to discuss Bill Clinton's attendance on campus last Wednesday that thousands of students attended. Minator Azemi Natural sciences freshman Article Reference Link
Universally private John Kim's article on both the Democratic candidates' healthcare coverage is a great starting point for discussion on the subject. He has obviously done his research and found many figures to support his claims. But there is one problem:
While he argues for Hillary's plan, because at first, as she initially plans it, it will be cheaper, he neglects to state that her plan will in turn be paying the private health care companies to cover those too poor to pay for health insurance. Subsidies for the poor are one thing, but giving these immensely selfish companies an even bigger payday than they already have is appalling. We have a military-industrial complex in this country as private companies make our government and through them, the taxpayers pay ungodly amounts of money for weapons, and they lobby Congress and the president constantly to jack up the defense spending. If we get in to another situation where the government depends on private enterprise for a needed service, we will just be exploited more.
Although Obama's plan will not initially cover everyone, and will give some subsidies that will end up in the hands of the health care industry, his plan of letting the government be one of the biggest health care providers is the best stepping stone on our way to free universal health care for all, without the private companies exploiting us with high prices. Hillary's plan will just lead to decades of being indebted to selfish CEOs. Do not let our country form a health care-industrial complex. Charles Allen Government sophomore Article Reference Link
Be the first to comment on this article!