A serious grievance occurred during Tuesday night's House of Student Representatives meeting when the $275,000 budget allotment for the 2000-2001 academic year was approved without debate. According to House parliamentary procedure, discussion of the budget should move from the five-minute question-and-answer period to debate, but before debate began, Matt Louis, chairman of the Technology Advancement Committee, made a motion to expedite the process and vote. Town representative James Applebury, who earlier expressed adamant opinions about the amount of money allocated to meals and snacks, asked the House to reconsider and allow debate. His motion, however, was voted against. Let's address Applebury's valid concern here: All seven House committees were allotted $100 for food for the entire year. In addition, Intercom, an organization of appointed leaders from most campus organizations, was allotted $500 for food at its meetings. Therefore, $1,200, or .44 percent, of House's entire budget is spent on food for its and Intercom's members. It may seem like a small percentage, but let's remember that those funds come from the $20 fees of 60 students. Ironically - and perhaps hypocritically - the first item cut from every bill submitted by organizations asking to have their conventions paid for is money for food. But there is a bigger issue at work here: the process by which this budget was approved. When the question-and-answer period expired, the hands of Louis and Applebury went up simultaneously. House Vice President Sara Donaldson, who presides over House meetings, called on Louis. Donaldson acknowledged that she intentionally called on Louis instead of Applebury. Her reason for doing so, she said, lay in the fact that she heard rumors of a disruptive outbreak on Applebury's part. In addition, Applebury had several chances - over the past three weeks - to make his opinion known during Administrative Cabinet and Finance Committee meetings, Donaldson said. Also, he did not raise any of his concerns during the question-and-answer period, she said. Applebury is a member of the Finance Committee, and the other committee members had already voted against his proposal to reduce the amount of money allocated for food. Therefore, Donaldson - saying "people didn't want to hear his nitpicking again that night" - eliminated Applebury's opportunity to garner support from other House representatives. Essentially, the only person who was fighting for us was prohibited from sharing his opinion. But in all fairness to Donaldson, she admitted she made a mistake. "I had to make a judgment call," she said. "But if I had to do it over again, I would do it differently. I would allow all voices to be heard." Unfortunately, the grievance against us does not end here. We can't help thinking that Tuesday night's Battle at The Ballpark - to which several House members were given tickets by TCU's marketing department - played a significant role in the lack of debate surrounding the budget. In fact, an announcement was made at last week's House meeting, stating that this week's meeting needed to be especially efficient, as House members wanted to get to the game. In addition, 20-minute presentations, which are normally given orally, were typed and distributed at the meeting, eliminating 20 minutes of discussion. The injustices caused by this one meeting are overwhelming. There are always serious and dangerous consequences - a lack of trust in our university's student leadership being a main one - when our representatives squelch opposing views and put other priorities ahead of such major issues as the budget for the entire year. Let's just hope all House members - but especially its leaders - have learned a lesson from Tuesday night's meeting. And let's also hope no irreparable damage has been done.
Local DJs out-gross French On-air demo shows we laugh at increasingly perverse humor A couple of weeks ago, I picked on the French for finding lowbrow humor exceedingly funny, while simultaneously feeling entitled to criticize Americans for our moronic culture and insipid tastes. However, I recently heard a radio broadcast that effectively dragged our culture to a level far lower than anything Vivid Video, Lou Pearlman or the Old Navy lady could ever achieve. For the time being, we should deservedly suffer the smelly insults the French will inevitably sling at us. Now I'm never one to claim that Americans are paragons of urbanity and genteel behavior. At one point in my life, I believed that, ultimately, Americans could be sophisticated if they really tried, but working at a video store took care of that delusion for me. As of Saturday, I would defend our culture based on the above argument to any pile of Eurotrash blowing smoke in my face and criticizing our level of sophistication. Then on Sunday, I went to the Laundromat. The Laundromat is not what I am embarrassed about - I like it; it has Ms. Pac-Man. What I am embarrassed about is what I heard when I got in my car to listen to the radio while I was waiting for my whites to dry. Upon tuning in to 105.3 FM, I happened upon two disc jockeys guffawing over some game they were playing with a listener at his house. I listened attentively because whatever they were doing sounded funny. Then I found out what it was. They had somehow convinced some moron to crack an egg between his butt cheeks. For once I am not making something up - I couldn't even conceive of something so weird yet insipid at the same time. I listened to the exchange with horrified fascination. As if sticking an egg in his butt wasn't perverse enough, his kids were present to witness it. For those of you who are married women, this is reason enough for making your husband go to church, unless you buy the 18-pack of eggs for this very reason and don't mind having screwed-up kids. The bit went something like this: DJ: OK, so are you ready? Retarded Husband: (in an exuberant voice) Yep, I've got the egg right here! And my kids are here too! Say hi, guys! (Children say hello) DJ: (laughing incredulously) Your kids are here? Boy this is gonna mess them up! OK then, put the egg between your butt cheeks and go for it whenever you're ready - oh put the phone down there so we can hear it crack." RH: (gasping in surprise) Whoa, that's cold! And so this went on to its inglorious end. The man excitedly counted to three, and then I heard a muffled pop followed by cries of "OH IT'S SLIMY!" and "Oh, that's gross!" on the parts of the idiot and the idiot DJs. I wish I could claim credit for making this up, just for the sake of saying that this incident didn't really happen, but I can't. At least I can say that I didn't laugh; I'm not one to pretend that I'm too refined to laugh at something stupid, but I did not laugh. I don't know who to blame for this sort of stunt being allowed. Obviously, I can point my finger at pioneering purveyors of idiocy and puerility such as Howard Stern and Tom Green, but there are others who are just as much at fault, and I'm not just talking about those guys who sport mullet haircuts and stickers depicting Calvin pissing on automobile logos on the windows of their pickups. They are those who think Britney Spears was cheated at the Grammys. They are those who wear Tommy Hilfiger and like girls who wear Abercrombie and Fitch. They are those who write vapid opinion columns. They are all of us, and we are wretched.
Steve Steward is a senior political science
major from Lodi, Calif. and he cracks eggs by striking them on the lip
of the frying pan.
Given the rash of religious articles written lately by some of my opinion columnist comrades, I thought I'd jump on the dogma-bashing bandwagon and add some of my own thoughts. The latest commentary on this topic, "Seek ye first the kingdom of love," stated that the Bible was old school, yet it overflowed with belief statements that are clearly taken from the Bible, such as the concept that God is love. It seems pretty arbitrary to pick one theme from the Bible and discredit another. I suppose this is just further evidence of how far postmodernism has infected people's minds. Another problem, besides the traces of postmodernism floating in Christian currents, is the irrationality it brings. Truly the church has damaged many people and said cruel and hurtful things, but this does not merit changing the core beliefs of Christianity as an apology. The church members who demonstrated at Matthew Shepard's funeral need to repent and display sorrow but not reinvent what the Bible proposes to be true about God's nature. Furthermore, it is not the facts about God's nature that are incorrect; it is the misapplication of them that needs to be targeted. Why separate God's judgment from God's love? Without justice, we would not know mercy; without judgment, we could not define love because love certainly has boundaries. This is a difficult balance, however. When and where is it appropriate to "judge" someone? And what is judgment in the first place? To judge, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is the capacity to perceive, discern or make reasonable decisions. I think the real word we are after here is condemnation. Judging is part of life and a perfectly acceptable activity. I don't say this just because the dictionary defines it in such innocuous terms. I say it mainly because if we didn't judge things, we wouldn't be capable of forming opinions or exercising our right to think for ourselves. Condemnation is the ugly counterpart of judgment and an attribute inciting so many to respond abrasively. While anger has its place, and is in many ways utterly justifiable, these issues are better dealt with in another way. In general, it seems overreacting to problems only exacerbates the issue. Balanced, well-thought out arguments are just as effective, if not more effective, in encouraging positive reactions than bitter ranting. While dogmatism has some negative effects, reactionary tirades are just as unattractive. While I agree with the conclusion of many dogma-bashers that we should love and accept people because that is most effective, I don't agree that loving other people necessitates reinventing truth. If anything, the truth is sometimes the most loving thing to extend to others.
Anita Boeninger is a junior social work major from Colorado Springs, Colo. She can be reached at (atboeninger@delta.is.tcu.edu).
Thanks: To students, faculty and staff who participated in the remembrance of the Holocaust this week. Everyone is busy, especially now, but taking the time to reflect is important. Spanks: To the House of Student Representatives - if you don't want to provide funding for food for students attending conferences, fine. But don't turn around and feed yourselves with our money. Thanks: To the Board of Trustees and all those who helped increase the minimum wage for nonexempt staff employees from $5.73 to $7.25. A small step but an important one. Thanks: To the Dallas Cowboys for re-signing former TCU receiver Jason Tucker for yet another season. Glad to see you guys still recognize talent. Spanks: To the Board of Trustees for setting aside $860,000 to M.J. Neeley School of Business for "special emphasis" and neglecting to immediately update equipment in the science laboratories. Got something to say? Send your 'thanks & spanks' to the Skiff at (skiffletters@tcu.edu). Be sure to include your name and a phone number. |
The TCU Daily Skiff © 1998, 1999 Credits |