|Friday, April 7, 2000||
Volume 65, Issue 128
Elrod on Elian
|Letters to the Editor
‘Let's work together'
To the editor,
I am writing in response to all the letters surrounding the Student Government Association elections and turnover.
I came into the 36th administration with no knowledge of parliamentary procedure, the conventions, responsibilities or the people involved. I, like President James Robertson Jr., ran as an independent candidate.
It is a very steep learning curve of procedure, priorities and relationships. The senate made me welcome and showed me the ropes.
If the 37th administration is to be as effective as the 36th, it must continue being tolerant and inclusive. We have all been democratically elected to serve our student body and it is time to get on with the job.
President Robertson: welcome to the task. Speaker of the Senate Justin Ray: welcome back. Senator Richard Russell: It was a difficult call and I fully support your decision.
And on that note ...
To the editor,
I have an idea. Take the number of individuals who voted in the election and divide it by the number of students who go to UH. There's the percentage of our student population that cares about this ridiculous squabble between former and new student government officers.
I would predict it's maybe around 2 percent, probably even less, because most of those who voted probably don't care either. Now take the number of students who attend UH and subtract the number of people who voted. That number is probably near 30,000.
Drop it. Nobody cares. Pick up a freaking phone and solve it.
The next time my dry cleaner shrinks one of my shirts, I think I'll solve the problem by writing them through The Daily Cougar. That should do it.
Go down to Coogs. Buy a couple of pitchers for one another and talk. You'll be amazed.
Responding to the ‘man'
To the editor,
Executive Director of Residential Life and Housing Andy Blank's guest column ("Dorms provide residents with security, safety," Opinion, April 3) seemed to be a typical corporate response. I resent that Blank used some fallacious logic to pull the wool over the eyes of residents. I can understand effective changes, but none of RLH's measures to increase security actually work.
I like living in the dorms, but I don't like many of the changes instituted in the past two years, because they just amount to inconveniences. I guarantee a majority of Quadrangle residents do agree the changes made by RLH are worthless. I urge Blank to take a poll if he believes otherwise.
I wish Blank had addressed the issue of reducing the number of entrances. I am sure he has statistics to back up his premise that reducing the number of entrances increases safety, but logic seems to contradict that when the entrances are 150 feet apart. They, like security cameras, can't deter those intent on doing harm -- therefore this change is an inconvenience.
While a majority of apartment complexes have two levels of security, I do not know of any that have an alarm that sounds when the door remains open for longer than 30 seconds. The alarm's only purpose is to annoy (inconvenience) the residents, not to deter intent criminals.
I also don't think that the card swipe has reduced the number of unaccompanied non-residents that enter the dorms anymore than the inexpensive lock and key mechanism did. The residents are really the ones that control who gets into the Quad buildings, not the expensive card swipes.
As to the self-closing doors sparing residents from fire for a "few valuable minutes" -- wouldn't a window that could open provide several more valuable minutes? Why are the locks on the windows sealed if Blank values his residents' safety so much?
If the state mandates that Quadrangle residents have self-closing doors, perhaps Blank (who hates to inconvenience residents) could see to it that the insides of the doors are lined with some kind of padding so the doors don't slam thunderously. He doesn't seem to mind spending money on other worthless changes.
All this over Luby's?
To the editor,
I noticed a few discrepancies upon reading Wendy Miller's column ("Provide lunch money for student athletes," Opinion, April 5) and the feature story on UH pitcher Alex Jackson ("A field of dreams: Jackson reveals the best and worst of baseball," Features, April 5).
In Miller's column, she stated that "... scholarships and stipends alleviate tuition and housing burdens ... (and extra spending money) is not a demand for student athletes to live in the lap of luxury."
The interview of Jackson seemingly contradicts her points. It states that the best city (Jackson's opinion) to which the team has traveled is Los Angeles, where John Moores, owner of the San Diego Padres, "put (them) up in this really incredible hotel right off Venice Beach." What an incredibly generous gesture on Moores' part. Surely I would take advantage of such a gift as well. However, this is indeed a luxury.
Miller's column argues that even though athletes receive scholarships and stipends to ease the cost of housing and tuition, they still need more money to "purchase a meal off campus." Jackson says that the best part about being UH baseball player is going to Luby's every day. Who is paying for that?
I understand and even agree with the notion that student athletes need the equipment and materials necessary to be truly successful -- which is true of every type of student. Yet, I'm confused. Do student athletes need more money than getting to go to Luby's?
Please forgive my generalization, but I feel it's necessary to make my point clear. Surely Miller is not serious. From the continual chuckle of my schoolmates upon reading the column, I gather it must have been written in a jocular manner.
Not everyone gets the lunch money they need. Life's not fair. But if Jackson's mom "won't give (him) any money to eat afterward," he need not worry. The baseball team will be on its way to Luby's for lunch tomorrow.
Letters to the editor are welcome from all members of the UH community and should focus on issues, not personalities. Letters must be typed and must include the author's name, telephone number and affiliation with the University. Anonymous letters will not be published. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, language and space. Letters may be delivered in person to Room 151, Communication; e-mailed to firstname.lastname@example.org; or faxed to (713) 743-5384.