Athletes not to blame
Despite the article’s title, Matt Rybaltowski points his criticism in the wrong direction when he blames security at pro sports games and the excitement of the games on the field for recent disruptions (“Athletes need adequate security,” Sept. 26). He claims “fans are too bored to behave like human beings if the activity on the field isn’t worth the ticket price,” and in the process he shoulders the blame on the athletes for spectator stupidity.
Blame individuals who choose to act egregiously in a public forum, not poor competition or inadequate security. Since September 11, we tend to magnify incidents into ones of national security. We need to be careful where we place blame for isolated incidents now more than ever, and we should not cry for quick fixes to larger problems. Increased security, whether in airports or on the field, will not guarantee that a few won’t act in ways harmful to us all.
?Jonathan SkolnickClass of 2001
Wow, never would I have thought that someone would waste their time to write such an article. The fact that you were offended by a word that the dictionary defines as “To name and dedicate ceremonially: christen a ship.” is ridiculous. Granted the word has a religious definition, but the paper used the non-religious definition. It is obvious that “Currents” did not mean the definition “To baptize into a Christian church or to give a name to at baptism” since it doesn’t even make sense in context. Next time before you attempt to invoke some kind religious fervor over the usage of a word, look it up.
Also, cat massacre? Last I heard it was just one. I am sick and tired of people still dwelling on this issue and often blowing it out of proportion. I hope animal rights people have better things to do with their time than continuing to waste time on that cat. Let’s put a stop to all this and move ahead with all of our lives. Please.
?Albert HuangClass of 2004
No more cat
The CT’s coverage of the “Cat Incident” and the UR Community’s response leaves me stupefied. So you have a dead mutilated cat! Investigations have yielded no concrete proof of a crime.
It’s time to move on? Candlelight vigils by Dean Burgett & Co. do not bring a cat back to life, nor does it make UR a better school according to the US News and World Report. Apparently opportunity cost means nothing to you. For the amount you pay those phonies in administration, they should put in 20 hour days raising academic and athletic standards, and growing the endowment. Instead of eulogizing a cat nobody knew (nobody missed and therefore nobody loved, except in death), why doesn’t the administration try to halt UR’s disappointing slide in ranking? And as responsible students, perhaps you should be studying, or at practice if you’re on a sports team, or at an internship gaining valuable skills.
Instead of wasting time over this dead cat perhaps you can improve Campus Career Recruitment so that graduates have other options for employment besides Wegmans and The Elmwood. How can UR alumni help students who send us their resumes with work experience consisting of an amalgam of “cat-incident” like rubbish?
In a year when Islamic terrorists murdered a couple of thousand people in NYC and D.C., when the U.S. is readying for war against Saddam, and when the U.S. economy is in year three of a four year slump, and when we’re in “Threat level Orange”, the cat still takes precedence at UR.
Move on, get a grip on reality, and do something constructive with your life. Quit burning candles and wasting time moaning about the cat. George Soros and Bill Gates didn’t become who they are by wasting time over dead cats.
?Ben EliasAlumni class of 1998MS 2000
Our friend, beer
The re-creation of the Hive last year was symbolic of positive changes in relationships between faculty, staff and students at the UR. The Hive marked a step in the right direction for improving student-faculty and student-staff interaction outside of the classroom. It is great to hear about the amount of attention and planning that the Hive is receiving consideration for because it truly is a great place to harness the spirit, the community and the pride between students, faculty, staff and their respective groups at the UR. And, after all, beer is one thing we have in common with each other in this world, let alone at the UR. One day, it may even be a link to world peace. Ideally then, no cost should be too great for this role of the Hive.
A general opinion exists amongst customers, however, that the Hive is too expensive. This opinion is very important. It is easy to associate with this when considering that, to most college students, a $4 case of beer is “pretty good stuff.” To attract customers, the Hive must consider the prices that college students should be able to afford. Ideas such as dollar drafts, pitchers and other specials should receive the upmost consideration. Revenue must suffer in beer sales, because no cost should be too great for the role of the Hive.
?Samuel TaskerAlumni Class of 2001
As a lifelong Baltimore fan, I considered the Red Wings a selling point for Rochester when I made my final college choice.
It saddened me to see them change their long-standing affiliation practically upon my arrival. However, what saddens me more is to see the CT publish an article, ostensibly about the Wings, which actually spends half its length laying out a totally ignorant account of the Orioles’ five-year struggle.
Staff writer David Swidler’s erroneous claims begin as early as his second paragraph, with his statement that “it’s been all downhill in Baltimore” since the ’96 campaign. This argument ignores the fact that the O’s actually had a better season the next year, when they led the American League wire-to-wire. In fact, it was not the Indians who “cancelled [the Birds’] World Series hopes” in 1997, but the American League umpires still seeking retribution against Roberto Alomar, who, the previous season, had hocked a loogie in the face of ump John Hirschbeck during an argument.
Actually, the Orioles’ problems began right after that ALCS with Peter Angelos’ firing of manager Davey Johnson, which Swidler overlooks entirely. His claim that “[Albert] Belle put up solid seasons” with the O’s is another crock. Belle underachieved his entire stay in Charm City, and was a divisive element in the clubhouse. In fact, he received an MVP vote in 2001 for leaving. You’re not “controversial” if nobody likes you. Furthermore, Swidler misrepresents Mike Mussina’s motives for leaving the Birds. The Moose very much wanted to remain in Baltimore, but Angelos refused to pay him the money he deserved, which he’d locked up in Belle.
Everything Swidler writes about the Wings is true, and they were right to jump ship. But why did he decide to turn a good, if short, piece, into a poor one by adding a column and a half of tripe? The Orioles’ woes could have been summed up in two words: Peter Angelos.
?Gordon ArsenoffClass of 2006
Laws can change
Michael He’s scathing editorial of Scott Jeffrey’s stance on the legalization of marijuana is completely absurd and unfounded. I am not a supporter of Scott Jeffrey but I do support the legalization of marijuana for the reasons he gives and many others.
Jeffery is completely correct in saying that the over 20 million marijuana smokers in this country do not deserve to go to jail, lose their jobs or lose their federal student aid for that matter. Mr. He is also correct in saying that just because people take hits from the bong, that doesn’t make it legal. The problem with Mr. He’s argument is that just because a law is passed doesn’t guarantee that it is moral, just or right for society.
We the American people have the right to debate and reject any law as we see fit. In the past it was illegal for women to vote. I suppose Mr. He believe
at Susan B. Anthony should have been thrown in jail and that all attempts at social change should be completely suppressed. As far as comparing smoking reefer to committing murder, that is completely ridiculous. Puffing the magic dragon does not affect anyone but the person puffing it, whereas murder is a horrible violent crime with massive repercussions to the victim and society.
Jeffery’s statement that “Marijuana is less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco, both to the user and society” has been cause for much debate. If we look at the health risks of smoking tobacco versus those of smoking weed there is evidence to support either side as worse. The beauty of pot is that the actual drug, THC, found in the cannabis plant is non-toxic and ingesting it orally as well as smoking it can generate its effects. So the whole issue of health risks from toking up can be avoided. This cannot be said for alcohol, which kills 50,000 people per year, or tobacco, which causes 400,000 deaths each year.
The final point I would like to touch on is the opinion of many, including Jeffrey, that legalizing ganja will decrease its rate of use among minors. It has been shown by countless studies that it is much easier for minors to obtain pot than tobacco or alcohol. This is because there is a system in place by the government to regulate their sale. A similar system does not exist for chronic. A minor can just walk out on the street and purchase a sack of dank nuggets without any restrictions. If marijuana were legalized the government could regulate its sale and make it possible for responsible adults to purchase it from a safe legal source there by getting it off the streets and out of our children’s hands. Not to mention eliminating other problems presently associated with marijuana prohibition such as crime, corruption and violence. But hey, what do I know? I’m just a dumb pothead.
For more information please visit the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws website at www.norml.org.
?Alan CarlisleClass of 2003
Pill problems unfounded
I was genuinely troubled by the letter “Inappropriate advice,” published in last week’s Campus Times. This letter serves little purpose other than to propagate myths about safe and widely-used contraceptive methods.
I agree that abstinence from sexual activity is the only completely effective method of protection against both pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. In spite of this, however, over half of college students are sexually active. This population must be enabled to make intelligent decisions about self-protection through honest, unbiased education.
I am astonished that the authors of the letter would claim that hormonal contraception is equivalent to abortion. No hormonal contraceptive has ever been categorized as an abortive agent by the FDA, the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology or any other medical authority. The terminology is sometimes faulty as well ? an artificial miscarriage, for example, is not necessarily equal to an abortion.
The assertion that human life begins at the moment of conception is unsubstantiated ? we do not know when life begins. We must come to our own conclusions according to personal beliefs. This value-laden, subjective notion is not a matter of fact.
The letter refers students to informational websites ? these sites are about Christian ideology rather than health. The information on these sites is either without citation or refers to studies consistently rejected by the medical community. It ought to go without saying that at this university, we are not all Christian. While perhaps useful for students choosing that lifestyle, these links are inappropriate and should not be promoted as sources of medical information.
The risk of serious problems is the reason why hormonal contraception is available only by prescription. Doctors do not recommend such methods for women who smoke or have other risk factors. Despite the risks listed, the letter fails to mention the reduction of risk for cervical, ovarian and uterine cancer. Many women take hormones to combat endometriosis and other gynecological problems. There are risks in every medical decision, and hormonal contraception presents no extraordinary threats.
The claim that hormonal contraception can lead to infertility is false. No medically credible resource lists infertility as a possible effect. The only related cases involve women who failed to use additional protection against STDs with hormonal methods. Left untreated, some STDs can lead to infertility. The portrayal of hormonal contraceptives as gravely dangerous is misleading.
I urge students with questions about methods of protection or any related subject to visit legitimate, reliable websites such as www.plannedparenthood.org, www.healthywomen.org or www.ashastd.org. The University Health Service is also an excellent resource for assistance with reproductive and sexual health issues. For contacts and general information, visit www.rochester.edu/uhs.
It is unfair and destructive to distribute inaccurate medical information on subjects involving the most personal decisions of our lives. The best way to choose methods of protection has never been to follow advice from columns and letters in the Campus Times. Speaking with a medical professional and one’s sexual partners will always yield the most useful information.
?Margaret CoitClass of 2004
I write to complain about the comic strip Homotheism. Misguided! Scurrilous! Unworthy of a minor campus rag. Send the cartoonist back to 6th grade.