First, thanks for publishing my words, and thanks to those who appreciate them. I just prefer to be positive and constructive, without making obscene, self-righteous and ridiculous statements like our friend Todd Farrell (“Letters to the Editor,” Nov. 14). Reading Todd Farrell’s letters takes some understanding and patience, in this case that he would make heated points over the little things.
But what I wanted to do was mention the ASF and Homecoming affairs that were written about (“ASF targets commuters” and “Homecoming: A dead tradition,” Nov. 14). ASF has been on its toes working two fronts, the Homecoming and getting students involved. Their efforts are well done, to the extent that if there is to be a spirited Homecoming and an inclusion of students, especially commuters, a change in mentality is necessary on campus. Over the years, I’ve seen how students are categorized, not as seniors, juniors, sophomores, and freshmen, but as commuters, on-campus, and even transfers. It is the right move for ASF to just simply ask what can we do for commuters, when the Campus Times’ question of saving Homecoming, had more criticism (good) but no solution. Convoluted as the Homecoming criticism was, with the point buried in the end, the writer had mostly “humbugged” our Homecoming, and said we are all to blame, but we all did well? Valid the critic’s points may be, should we then work harder on Homecoming next year?
So with these problem-solving issues, they are little problems yet they take big solutions. To think of everyone as the same students, and see people for who they are, not what they are on campus; minor social perspective issue. And the other issue of Homecoming, to make a tradition last and be in it now and not later. Students were totally open to Homecoming, and that is where it lies in their priorities; because some students didn’t participant in Homecoming because they were back home, with friends, or studying. Though I doubt some were studying, the library was closed.
Good job to all, and University Relations. Homecoming could not have been that bad if it brought Leo the Leopard out to play.
On behalf of the the decent citizens of this country, Mr. Ruiz, we would like to commend you on your brave attempt to expose the the insidious conspiracy perpetrated by the seedy and perverted underbelly of our society, namely the conservative right.
Your column on Nov. 21, 2003, concerning gay marriage “In fear of a pink planet” was surprisingly witty and a breath of fresh air. Being an alumnus of such a conservative school as ours, I am very glad that finally this kind of rhetoric is out in the open and being heard.
I am sure your article will shed some light on the ridiculous perceptions that some people in our society impose upon the gay community and our “supposed” scheme to dominate the world and corrupt mainstream culture . . . thus the birth of “METROSEXUALS!” (We are half way there! . . . Queermageddon here we come!)
There is a completely different world outside of school where gay people actually do fraternize and live in peace with the rest of the community and should share all the rights that they enjoy.
On behalf of the gayborhood and the gay-friendly neighborhood, thank you for your column.
Class of 1997
First, I would like to say that Kenneth Todd Ruiz is an excellent writer and his reporting is thorough and fun to read.
In his column titled “Murder is Fun” (Dec. 5) he captures the peculiar paradigm that I often question myself. That being the pull between the political act of murder and the entertaining/harmless act of playing violent video games. The hypocrisy that exists in our government never ceases to make me sick, and it is seldom that it is put so blatantly and cautiously to ensure that people react. Especially in a town like La Verne. Cheers to you, Todd!
On to my second point. This is in reaction to the Letter to the Editor from Hugo Bryan Castillo regarding another column written by Ruiz titled “In fear of a pink planet” (Nov. 21). I am shocked that this letter needed to be written. When I read the column the first time is was clear to me that Ruiz stood on the side of homosexuals in the fight to achieve the right of marriage (an unfortunate struggle that shouldn’t even need to be fought, but anyway).
It was clear to me that Ruiz was using the language used by homophobics and anti-gay marriage advocates to illustrate how ludicrous it is to deny anybody this right. It definitely was, as Castillo put it, “sarcastic.” This letter is to assure Ruiz that there are those of us that “got it.” I personally enjoy this style of critical evaluation in an opinions column. I think this brings a level of sophisticated analysis to the Campus Times that is refreshing. Sincerely, I thought it was an excellent, timely and effective column.
To Castillo, please know that I fully support the homosexual community in all its efforts to attain the social acceptance that should not be denied them in the first place. So being a total supporter, I was still able to read past the actual words, being used to examine exactly how they were being used. Granted, I am not a lesbian, but I don’t think that should make a difference.
Double cheers to you, Todd! And I hope that Castillo now knows that some members of his own community do, in fact, support his lifestyle.
I also applaud the photo essay/article on the housekeeping services on campus. Isn’t it nice to acknowledge those around you that go unappreciated and unnoticed for doing your dirty work? These women work hard and it is nice to show them gratitude. Thanks to the Campus Times (namely Gloria Diaz and Reina Santa Cruz).
Class of 2003
I was in your campus visiting my brother who attends your University and I could not but help to read Mr. Werner’s comments about the misspelling on the Rock (“Letters to the Editor,” Nov. 7). I must say I am in shock that a chair of the English department would sink so low and say “I don’t tink u no gud Englisch an kan’t rite rele gud.” How is that supposed to help in anyway to correct the SAE person who wrote that? I also do not agree with the comments of Mr. Gomez (“Letters to the Editor,” Nov. 14) who states that it is the responsibility of the English department to spell correctly.
To the good Dr. Werner, Chair of the English Department, who has regrettably missed our allusion to Three Dog Night’s 1969 song “One” (“Letters to the Editor,” Nov. 7):
I would like to clear up this unfortunate issue once and for all with an explanation of exactly what was written on the Rock. While we realize that at initial interpretation our painting of “One is the awesomest number” may appear to be merely a lack of grammatical proficiency, it was in fact, purposely placed there to further the effect of the message, as is customarily the case with regards to the employment of allusions. Obviously you are not included in david the culturally aware demographic that we were appealing to when we chose to use this phrase. I’m sure that the great majority of people exposed to our painting recognized it as being not a display of illiteracy, but rather the witty utilization of pop culture that it, in actuality, was. This may be bad form in the writing of a school-directed essay, but definitely not with regards to any form of artistic expression. I sincerely doubt that you would criticize Dylan Thomas for the grammatical eccentricities in his poetry seeing as how it is those exact quirks that make his poetry so ingenious. Likewise, our Rock painting being certainly more of an artistic medium than literary piece, we felt that we were by no means cretinistic in doing so.
Sigma Alpha Epsilon
In his Dec. 5 Letter to the Editor, ULV sophomore David Calhoun charges that a Times article misrepresented the “Patriot Act” when it claimed that the Act allows the FBI to conduct secret searches without search warrants or probable cause. Mr. Calhoun offers some out-of-context quotes from the Act itself to support his point.
Mr. Calhoun is simply wrong – the Act does allow the FBI (and other more shadowy government spy agencies) to conduct secret searches without warrants or probable cause and often with no judicial review. Delaying notice for the execution of a search warrant does in fact make the search secret. One much-discussed example: The FBI can now legally break into your home without showing probable cause, search your computer files, and never tell you that they were there. A second example, the FBI can search library records without probable cause to try to find out what you are checking out and/or reading, and it is illegal for the library to tell you that this was done.
The traditional justification for search warrants (based on Constitutional principles) has been “probable cause” that a crime has been committed. The concept of probable cause has a long history of judicial review that seeks to balance the rights of citizens against the need for police searches. The “Patriot Act” concepts cited by Mr.Calhoun (“good cause” and “reasonable necessity”) have little or no history of judicial review and were specifically designed to evade Constitutional limits (thus the charge by some that John Ashcroft’s Justice Department is “shredding the Constitution”).
The “Patriot Act” was hastily-written and passed in the wake of the anger and hysteria that followed the Sept. 11 attacks. Many members of Congress admitted that they did not even read the Act before voting for it. It does indeed threaten the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, including ULV students like Mr.Calhoun. The destruction of Sept. 11 was only a limited success for the terrorists. The destruction of the Constitutional basis of our rights as citizens would be a much more enduring victory for terrorism.
Associate Professor of Sociology/Criminology