Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Editing? Who needs it
Two letters today describe two archetypes of college whiners. The "I'm so cloud-headed I'll describe everything poetically so that it makes no sense but somehow still believe I'm reaching people" chick and the "Hey, the technicalities are in my favor, I must be right" dude.
Martin A. Kohan wastes no time in defending his bold call for a petition to suggest that maybe the ASUC should start to consider possibly trying to convince, with limited success, In-N-Out to start an unprofitable store on campus.
The petition itself, which can be found at www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~sino, merely seeks to put a statement on the spring ballot asking that ASUC work to attract an In-N-Out to campus. Hence, it does not force ASUC to do anything without a majority of the students' consent.
That is technically accurate, because the petition doesn't force the ASUC to do anything even if it does pass. Still, the idea that passage on the ASUC ballot is "a majority of students' consent" is pretty laughable.
As attested by the enormous popularity of In-N-Out's location in San Francisco, which lacks a drive-thru, given its heavy pedestrian traffic, toursim activity, and large Southern California population.
How about asking the ASUC to try to attract some independent clauses?
Kamara Rose O'Connor has a stupid name. Reading her piece is kind of painful, though you can pretty much get the gist of it from the first paragraph:
As some of you may or may not be aware, our lovely school, UC, has announced plans to renew its vows to Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory. The ceremony will be held on Dec. 1, when the U.S. Department of Energy consecrates their union: Mama Bomb and Papa University, together forever. Here is why we, as the neglected foster children of this dysfuntional marriage, should be concerned.
Check the date. Also check out what didn't happen on Dec. 1. Okay, so she (or The Daily Cal editorial board) is behind the times. But if you follow the metaphor, you can discover that she is advocating that neglected foster children of dysfunctional marriages have a responsibility to try to cause their parents' divorces. Try passing that one by youth rights advocates.
. . .
|
. . .
|
