To the editor:
On Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2011, the ASI Senate passed a resolution to promote a tobacco-free campus. The resolution indicated that ASI would urge President Welty to create a tobacco-free policy for our campus. The resolution was developed by a senator, reviewed in our Legislative Committee and then forwarded to the ASI Senate.
As president of ASI, I felt that there were several issues with the way this particular resolution was passed. First, it wasn’t formatted like our standard resolutions. Second, it was not an informational item in the Senate before it became an action item, meaning senators had a limited amount of time to gather student opinion on the issue before making a vote. Third, it was vague as to what constituted “campus” ”” what about areas like the SaveMart Center, Bulldog Stadium, University Courtyard or agricultural fields?
Additionally, the resolution gave no indication of what the potential enforcement piece could be: will students receive a huge fine, or just a warning ticket for infractions? And can University Police even enforce such a policy given it’s just that ”” a policy, not law?
Finally, one professor in particular spoke to the senate regarding the resolution in a way I could only describe as bullying. The professor’s presentation also contained misinformation about the effects that the resolution may have on the campus.
Since the time the resolution was passed, the above issues have become clear, and many students have come forward indicating their dissatisfied with the decision ASI has made. Response and feedback have been so strong that a few senators who voted for the resolution have indicated they wish to reconsider the resolution now that they are aware of the discontent it has caused their constituents.
To this effect, ASI will be reconsidering the resolution to support a tobacco-free campus at our next meeting on Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2011, at 4:00 p.m. in USU 312/314. If you are interested in this resolution, whether you support or oppose a tobacco-free campus, please feel free to email your respective senators and/or attend the ASI meeting to make a public comment on the issue.
Selena Farnesi
ASI President
To the editor:
The “Occupy” movement pales in comparison to the impending collapse of Social Security and Medicare. These are the sacred cows which most newspapers won’t seriously investigate.
Bankruptcy of such federal schemes will cost university students in excess of one million dollars over their 40-year working careers.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who is running for president, has correctly called Social Security, a Ponzi scheme; however his terminology needs to be refined.
Please study the technical analysis offered at www.SocialSecurityPonziScheme.com and understand the definition of “Ponzi Operation.”
Bill Cade
To the editor:
I really liked the article written by Maddie Shannon about bias in the news media. As she mentioned, she is a Republican; I must mention that I am a libertarian who is for smaller government and less taxes. But, it’s really dangerous to the American people how the news is “tossed” in the media these days.
The news does not remain objective when you call a courteous bow from President Obama to Hu Jintao “bowing down to the Chinese.” And you have audacity enough to call all liberals, “weed smoking hippie slobs.” I think we get enough false rhetoric from the politicians, so it wouldn’t be unfair to not expect it from the news media.
But is it really possible to deliver news without passing a judgement? I am not sure. But we can certainly expect a certain consistency. As an example, to stay consistent, if you openly voice your protest against Obamacare for being unconstitutional, you also should voice your protest against the Patriot Act, for it is just as unconstitutional. Until you do that, there is no difference between you and the politician who “spins” the real news and gives the public their own version of the story. I think we can and should expect more responsibility from a news channel that calls itself “fair and balanced.”
Sandip Roy
International Business, English
To the editor:
I am writing in response to the amount of coverage, or lack of coverage, regarding the Rally to Defend Education in the Nov. 9 issue. This was one of the biggest events in regards to student participation/attendance I have seen on campus since transferring here this semester, so I was surprised to see that the only coverage in the paper was a photo of Matt Shupe yelling out “Get a Job” with a small caption describing the photo. There was no mention of what the rally represented and what the students were there for. I was expecting at least some type of article relating to the event.
I understand that there was an article and video posted on the website that went into further detail on the rally and its critics, but online postings are usually a supplement to the stories in the paper, not the other way around. I feel like there is also a larger potential audience that would have read the article if it was printed in the paper rather than being online. What was the reasoning behind this decision?
Martin Torres
Response from Editor in Chief Ben Ingersoll:
The article “Occupy movement heats up on campus, worldwide” was submitted to The Collegian editorial staff after the publication deadline and was therefore featured only in the online edition.
Bill Cade • Nov 29, 2011 at 5:32 pm
It’s amazing just how much delusion, that a Social Security check can buy.
Federal Ponzi Operation: Defined herein as a United States Federal Government virtual machine or mechanism; which possesses identical classic Ponzi scheme attributes, but less and except for original malicious intent to defraud American citizens. However, the federal government utilizes conscription investors; and thus is completely exempt from executing Phase-I, of a classic Ponzi scheme. Moreover, such a federal government virtual machine or mechanism; has exactly the same device function, fraudulent outcome and catastrophic effect, as any classic Ponzi scheme. Such Federal Ponzi Operations include, but are not limited to, Social Security and Medicare.
http://www.socialsecurityponzischeme.com/
joshua4234 • Nov 14, 2011 at 2:03 am
I’m sick and tired of seeing all this propaganda about Social Security. All I’ve seen in the Collegian is that it’s broken and going to collapse. These are just flat out LIES. Just take the time to look at the net total of money we’ve knowingly paid to the government to fund social security and you will see it’s in a surplus. This program was prepared to endure times where it was paying out more than it was taking in, so it took in more money before that happened. For instance, if I made a million a year for ten years and only spent 250k a year during that time, then all of a sudden I get demoted to making 225k a year I’m technically paying more than I’m making, but I’m still in the green. I can take a few years to figure out how to get more income so I make more than I spend. This is what social security is like, except it’d be more similar if some idiot had access to my bank account and spent all my money on pointless wars or tax cuts or drug companies or oil subsidies.
Also, the only solution I ever hear is to privatize it and make people invest in private industry. I’m not sure how this prevents the same situation of people giving money to some entity to give back to them when they are older, aka a “ponzi scheme” in the writer’s eyes. All this does is give private entities billions of dollars to do risky things with until there is inevitably another collapse and everyone loses their money. I’m disgusted and frankly not surprised that nobody on here ever suggest fixing the funding of the EXTREMELY POPULAR program and only keeps yelling to toss it out the window and give more of our money to private business to make rich people richer.