I found a slight problem as I read Vic Vela's Sept. 27 article. John Kerry is no Sammy Sosa.
Vela's analogy is correct in comparing the slumping Sosa with the struggling Kerry. However, it stops there. Unlike Sosa, Kerry has no past record of being a superstar. He demonstrated against his fellow soldiers in Vietnam with hateful words. He opposed the Cold War initiatives of Ronald Reagan. He proposed the Kerry Amendment after the first attacks on the WTC that would have cut the intelligence budget by $6 billion. The Senate voted 75-20 against the amendment. Even Ted Kennedy voted in opposition.
Recently, he has switched positions more times on more issues than my TI-83 can compute. I tried adding them up, but it said there was an error. Yes, I think there is an error.
Obviously, Kerry has no record to run. This has been made clear by the campaign's repeated attempts to appeal to the "Anybody But Bush" crowd. They'll never tell you why Kerry is the right choice, but why President Bush is the wrong choice. His constant "twisting in the wind" has left the American public bewildered as to what a President Kerry (heaven forbid) would do.
Vic, let me give you a better analogy. Kerry is a crusty old veteran trying to revitalize his pathetic career. The coach (the Democratic Party) gives Kerry a chance to show that he still has it. Kerry steps up to the plate eager to get an at-bat. Whoops, strike three before he knew it.
He's out!
--Andrew Compton
pre-business freshman
Love from the left
Democrats truly are the more compassionate and caring party. Last Wednesday, a small group of Republicans held a pro-Bush rally outside the Biltmore where Teresa Heinz Kerry was to speak.
We received a warm welcome from all of the Dems who were arriving to attend the speech. Many of them took time to roll down their windows and shout obscenities, while others just told us we were "number one" with their middle fingers.
Naturally, we didn't let it get our spirits down, although we were a little frightened when on three separate incidences a driver swerved close to the curb in an effort to clip one of us with his mirror. Yes, it has been reaffirmed: I do believe that those Dems are truly the more open-minded and compassionate party.
--Joshua T Smith
ASU student
Debate debases student body
As a senior at ASU I've swallowed the last two tuition hikes with relatively little fuss. The state is broke, the city's broke and people with ASU degrees are broke, so donations are hard to come by.
As a person who's broke, I understood the predicament.
Only it turns out people aren't so broke now that a nationally televised debate is coming to town. I was furious when I read that in just about five months more than $2 million dollars were all too readily thrown down by all sorts of community organizations and businesses for just a little advertising space. Where were those community donations when we needed it for things the students are actually going to benefit from or at least be able to attend?
The spokesman for the city of Tempe touts their part in the donations as "an example of our strong partnership with ASU." I was a bit curious about which part of the relationship with us he was talking about.
The part where they want to make all students live on campus with no cars, or the part where they pretend students are "transients" and therefore shouldn't be able to vote in city elections?
Students are in no way benefiting from this debate.
All it has done is show us yet again that we really don't matter to this community -- [a community] that would be the equivalent of Apache Junction if the University weren't here.
I've done a little research into how the other schools are handling the debate, and I must say they are doing it much more student friendly. Both schools have already divvied out what tickets they were able to get to students, and their Web sites have more information.
--Teagan Mustain
political science senior
Affordability editorial gets two cents worth
Michael Crow and The State Press have consistently sold the tuition hike as necessary to increase the financial aid available to students. While aid has increased, tuition hikes have outpaced aid increases by a margin of more than 3:1.
Based on the numbers from Monday's State Press (tuition has increased by 40 percent while aid has gone from eight to 14 percent of tuition revenue), tuition has increased by $1,200/year, while aid for students from tuition revenues have increased by $331/year.
By increasing tuition for all students (many of whom were barely able to make it two years ago), the number of students needing financial aid is sure to have increased over the last two years.
I would like to see a story by The State Press comparing the number of students that were able to pay tuition two years ago to the number of students now that need financial aid due to the increases in tuition. I'd bet the overall result is that a college education has become less accessible to more people, rather than an increase in accessibility due to the additional financial resources.
--Derek Dosdall
bioengineering graduate student
I cannot believe that Arizona students are complaining about their in-state tuition costs.
Ohio state schools are about $14,000-$20,000 for in-state Ohio students. If our students could attend a state school for $4,000 per year they would be jumping for joy.
Since when does every person deserve a college education for free? Those who choose college should pay for their education. Teachers must be paid; buildings must be maintained; expenses must be met. Those who attend classes must pay for all of this.
Retired persons and those who choose work instead of attending college are not responsible to pay for your college education through their taxes.
After all, "the government" is really just all of the citizens supporting the decisions our representatives make concerning where our money goes.
--Karen Mitchell
friend/relative of student
You state, "there isn't much University officials can do besides ask all students to pay for their less fortunate peers' financial assistance."
First, I think you misstate your position. Your true position is "University officials have no choice but to force 'rich' students to pay for 'poor' students." (I simply translated from PC speak to laymen speak). The problem with this, of course, is that you then must identify what qualifies one as "rich." (This is not an easy thing to do).
More important, why, may I ask, do you assert this as the case? Why should I or any other student be forced to subsidize the cost of other students' education?
While I disagree with need-based scholarships in general, I find it particularly disturbing that I am forced to subsidize the education of students who, at the margin, diminish my education and the value of my degree upon graduation.
Instead, why not make students bear the entire cost of their education? Then students might actually 1). come to class, 2). invest time in their education (outside of sex or alcohol independent studies), and 3). hold the University responsible for its curricula and facilities.
--Daniel R. Moody
economics senior