Thursday August 30, 2001 |

Kelly Ward letter like a broken record

Poor, poor delusional Kelly! I applaud the Young Democrats president for her attempt to appeal to the average American. I certainly expected someone of her character, someone who turned away incoming freshmen Republicans who wanted voter registrations (an illegal action if I may add) at the summer freshmen orientations, to write such a commentary. Ward sounds like a broken record.

To put is simply, the Republican Party is the party for those individuals who want to make a life for themselves, become economically independent, and above all believe that the federal government should not spoon feed the masses with costly social programs.

A closer look at the Democratic voting pool highlights the problem with the left wing. Why do Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton go around the country stirring up more racial division and causing more hatred between blacks and whites? Why do bleeding heart Democrats propose socialistic programs for the poor? The answer to both questions is simple. Democrats are dependent on the poor staying poor and minorities feeling victimized by the white protestant majority.

True liberals are in LALA land if they think that their party helps America. How quickly they forget the recent northern California drought that forced many farmers there to ask the government to lower the water of a dammed lake by 1 foot for their fields. Democrats turned their heads the other way because the liberal environmentalists thought that an endangered suckerfish was more important. Luckily, President Bush's Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton stepped in and got the water that the farmers needed.

So the moral of this story and my response to Kelly and her menagerie of supporters is, "yes," the Democratic party speaks for America, that is, if you want to remain poor, want to feel victimized - and in the case of my example - if you are a suckerfish.

Charles A. Peterson

history sophomore

Lockers needed in new union

This is an open letter to Dan Adams, director of the student union, requesting that he please reconsider a decision made during the transfer from the old to new union. Specifically the decision made not to allow rental lockers in the new building until the completion of Phase II.

What follows is my understanding of the situation gathered from questioning of personnel at the union's information desk. The construction company will provide brand new lockers once the company completely finishes. But in the interim (one year, two years?), you have decided that no old lockers can be moved to that part of the union already completed.

That decision doesn't make sense from my perspective for the following reasons:

One, some of the student population, including myself, truly depended upon those old lockers. Now, at the new union, I have problems managing the weight of items that I need to bring in with me together with a heavy tray of food, especially when opening a door to a room for "additional seating." This is before colder, rainier weather requiring more clothing and raingear sets in.

Two, if you don't think the old lockers are pleasing enough aesthetically, may I point out that the "new" painted cement floors, especially in areas receiving heavy traffic like the Food Court, are now more gray cement than paint from scraping of the painted surfaces. At least the old lockers were entirely painted.

Three, if you don't think that you have secured space available now, would you please consider space in the large, inside stair well next to the current location of Fast Copy.

I don't mean to appear insolent, but your decision doesn't seem to reflect a student's student union. It appears more authoritarian than that.

Paul D. Robbins

philosophy graduate student