Teddy, good article, you made a lot of valid points about Bush weaning away from the true nature of a debate (\Debate will showcase true sides of both competitors,"" Opinion, Sept. 30). I must, however, respectfully criticize you for not equally criticizing Kerry for some of the more comical requests he put forth in the debate agenda. By focusing your efforts on a Bush-bashing spree, you appealed to core liberal readers, yet did nothing to open conservatives to valid concerns you have.
It is my opinion that such a strategy doesn't do much to shift undecided voters towards your valid position. My personal strategy would be to criticize Kerry's stance on questionable issues, only to then offer Bush's stance on the same issue. This way the majority of readers would see that there is an indisputable better case scenario in Kerry. However, simple Bush bashing, as entertaining as it is, really isn't helping the cause too much.
I am writing in response to your staff opinion on the Halloween riots (""Dressing up the problem,"" Staff Opinion, Sept. 29).
While I agree that some of the city's measures may not be effective, your solution rewards people for bad behavior.
What you have failed to acknowledge is that by extending bar times, the city is setting a precedent: if you break the law enough times, we will change the laws in order to appease you so that you will not break the law again. With this precedent, why not riot every weekend until the city permanently extends bar times?
The real solution to this problem is that we, the students, need to start acting like the adults we are. Parents appease young children by giving them what they want to eliminate bad behavior. As adults we are supposed to have grown out of this stage and accept responsibility for our actions.
I commend the efforts of the city to try to maintain the Halloween celebrations for the law-abiding citizens. Now it is up to us to make sure we don't give them a reason to take it away.
I would like to express my disagreement with Nic Lehmann-Ziebarth's article (""Randall stadium an ugly sports spectacle,"" Opinion, Sept. 28). He is wrong in saying that Camp Randall stadium is a ""monstrosity.""
He has failed to grasp the concept that the new jumbotron facilitates the enjoyment of the football games. Toward the end of his treasonous article, Lehmann-Ziebarth complains that people are now enjoying themselves by paying some attention to the jumbotron instead of the happenings in the stands. The jumbotron actually displays replays, stats, and scores, among other useful facts about the game.
Besides, the game is why we are at the stadium in the first place, isn't it?
He also wrote about the new seats located in front of the wall of the Field House. I do not think the north wall of the Field House was really a historic landmark. In the past nobody came to any of the games to see that wall.
Finally, I would like to comment on Nic's feelings towards ""the trough"". I believe it is common sense to get rid of something that is basically ""a urinal bin.""
