Recently the brave citizens of Madison fought off the oppressive foe that was a planned casino, right in our own backyards. This was a great victory that saved our fair city from innumerable plagues.
Now, having taken a few days to celebrate the maintenance of the status quo, we must not rest on our laurels. We, we proud, we vocal band of progressive warriors must harness our energy, claim momentum from our victory, and raise a preemptive strike against our next great foe: The Olive Garden.
The parallels are many, and the threat is imminent... The Olive Garden must be stopped.
Sprawl, this is our enemy. One more Olive Garden with its tile roof, fake ivy and faux frescos will be a catalyst for new roads and malls, and homes inhabited by people who will drive a car to work rather than ride on Metro.
Hospitaliano, this is our enemy. This awesome promise will draw the people of Madison like a powerful tractor beam, and the enemy's smiling wait-staff will entertain with rousing renditions of the birthday song, whether it's your birthday or not (almost as powerful as the likes of Wayne Newton, who the casino was sure to have drawn). Undoubtedly, the Square will once again be vacant, and the patrons of the new Arts Center will drop their opera glasses and hop a bus to a former corn field turned Italian eatery/Mecca on the far East Side.
A virus on our public health and social services, this is our enemy. Enticed by promises of carafes of fine vino from the private cellar, and bottomless baskets of carb-filled breadsticks, the hapless among us will grow fat and drunk, straining the public trough and raising Medicare costs for all.
So rise Madison, rise up against this scourge, this threat, this sickening offense to our collective sense of good taste... Err, scratch that, because what I meant to say was... this threat to our health, our downtown and our environment. The Olive Garden must be stopped, so join me in proclaiming \Olive GardiNO!""
I am writing in response to an letter in last week's Friday Forum, ""Why is everybody picking on Bush?"" in which Andy Mathys, a Republican, expressed his distaste in being underrepresented in this newspaper and on campus in general.
I agree that the ideas of conservatives are not loudly stated at UW. However, unlike Mr. Mathys, this fact is something that brings me great pride. I am proud of UW-Madison for being a campus that is willing to stand up for things such as equal rights and the ideals of a peaceful global community.
The reason ""everybody is always picking on Bush,"" Mr. Mathys, is that his behavior in office has directly contradicted those very values the students of our university stand for. And regarding your disgust for the Democrats who ""support whichever Democratic candidate has the best chance of beating Bush,"" I offer this: by definition, most of the Democratic candidates have similar stances on the issues we feel are important. Therefore, if we want our anti-peace, anti-gay, anti-choice president out of office, voting for the Democratic candidate we feel will be able to accomplish this efficiently seems like a reasonable strategy.
You may not be the next in line to jump on what you call the ""Anti-Bush Bandwagon,"" but you may as well stop grumbling, because the majority of your fellow UW-Madison students are going to stay firmly planted on it-and it's headed straight for the White House in November!
In the next few years, there will be an estimated 315 to 600 million obsolete computers in the United States. Beyond being an enormous amount of waste for our landfills to handle, these computers are also highly toxic. Lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, chromium and polyvinyl-chloride are just a few examples of the 32 toxins found in the average personal computer. Already, improperly discarded electronics account for 40 percent of the lead found in municipal solid-waste landfills. As time goes on, this number will surely rise as waves of newly discarded computers begin to break down.
Fortunately, Representative Mark Miller of Monona, Wisconsin, has recently introduced new state legislation to deal with this problem. The new bill, which is now being discussed by the Natural Resources Committee, would require computer producers to enact take-back recycling programs for the products they sell in the state. This extended producer responsibility solution makes computer companies responsible for the entire life-cycle of the toxic products they create. If enacted, the legislation would lift the burden of controlling the electronics waste stream off of taxpayers and local governments who are already facing tight budgets. Currently, take-back programs are run by Dell, Hewlett Packard, Gateway and other companies in the European Union and Japan. Certainly these producers can do the same thing here.
I urge you to call your state representative today and let them know that you support this legislation. For more information about electronic waste issues, please go to
I would like to respond to the Feb. 23 Staff Opinion regarding Ralph Nader's announcement to run for president in 2004.
While I agree with the majority of his positions, I will not be voting for him in November. However, this does not mean that I outright oppose the fact that he is even running, as your opinion does.
First you say that he ""certainly has the right to make the attempt"" but then you go on to say ""do not sign those petitions to get him on the ballot."" I would say two things in response to your fear of Nader handing the election to Bush. First, because the stakes are higher than in 2000, Nader will not likely attract as many voters as before.
The second and more important point is that we should never politicize the right of the people to participate in the political process, and yes, even run for president. Surely your editorial board would have no problem if Jerry Fallwell or Alan Keyes decided to mount an independent campaign.
If you do not want Nader to spoil the election the tactic should not be ""Don't vote for Nader"" but rather to explain why a Democratic candidate is preferable both to Bush as well as to Nader.
The electorate should choose the best of all candidates, not just those who come from the two major parties. Any suggestion to the contrary undermines the right of the people to participate in the democratic process.
