Grad Student and LTD User Sticks It to the ASUO
Nathan Baker’s letter to the editor in the ODE today is good stuff. He remarks about the incidental fee, student services and succinctly depicts the ASUO’s distorted perceptions towards fiscal responsibility. Submitted by simg.
what’s sarcasm? just kidding! I think everyone understood that the author was sensationalizing the issue but the point is still there: Don’t cut LTD service. My point was simply that noone said anything about cutting LTD service. It was brought up that we should truley examine the way in which we negotiate and execute our contract with LTD. So why don’t you re-read my post my (ooooh) 🙂
I’d say the letter has its pros and cons. On the plus side, it suggests that there are many paths to fiscal responsibility, including one right through the OSPIRG budget. On the con side, it represents a bit of an overreaction. First, the Senate was discussing the issue fairly abstractly… I wouldn’t worry that the LTD service will expire any time soon. Second, cutting the number of passes might not be a horrible idea. After all, we don’t purchase enough football tickets for every student, but the ones who want them stand in line. Without good ridership numbers, it’s impossible to say if reducing the number of passes purchased makes sense, but if the ASUO can save money by devising a way to purchase a number of passes that more accurately reflects the needs of students, it should… even if we have to wait in a line once a month.
ooooohhh “insincerely”!!!! right?
I must dispute your notion that you shouldn’t have chimed in on here. All you did was clear up some confusion over a letter printed on the commentary page you’re in charge of. I think we all benefit when journalists respond to questions and are transparent about what it is that they do. Hiding behind a byline is just so five years ago.
There’s a fine line between responding to questions and bantering back and forth. But in this case, I think everyone – including the Emerald – benefits from you posting on this topic.
Sorry, I really shouldn’t be doing this, but I feel behooved to point it out nonetheless: Re-read the letter and ask yourself if you actually agree with it; ask yourself whether Mr. Baker might be using a technique known as sarcasm. Are there any words that might tip you off? I’ll allow you to discuss among yourselves.
Can I just say that I don’t think anyone is proposing getting rid of the LTD service but rather proposing really knowing what we are paying for in terms of numbers so that we can continually negotiate the best contract possible for our dollars…
Shout out to TGraf for his defense of Libertarianism right above the letter in question. Good stuff, especially by Emerald standards.