To the Editor:

In their attempt to educate the readers of this paper on the upcoming Student Government elections, the editors failed to present a clear and truthful picture of the current state of SG and specifically the roles of those running for office. In previous articles and most recently the editorial titled “Vote Vance”, the editors stated that this year’s Student Government has been ineffective and unproductive, destroying the reputation of years past. The fact is, this year has seen the completion of several projects started by previous administrations, as well as initiating new ones and setting the groundwork for the next administration to complete theirs.

Of the twenty individuals vying for the three executive offices, eleven have experience in Student Government. Five of them have held positions in SG previous to the Spring 2003 elections. Billy Bludgus, Chris Clark, Peter Groverman, Justice Walker, and Carlos Echeverri all had their hands in making improvements over the last three administrations. In fact, Walker and Echeverri were each awarded the Outstanding Senator Award for their work for the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 years respectively. The accomplishments made by Bludgus, Clark, Walker, and Echeverri last year, resulted in them being elected or appointed to this year’s Executive Board along with President Scott Sadowski.

This year has been a great success, despite all that has been reported. Bludgus, as Chief of Staff-External, has been the right hand man to President Sadowski and has taken on many of the initiatives presented in his platform. Bludgus currently heads the Dining Service Advisory Committee and the Library Advisory Board, which he created. He has also created the Hurricane-for-a-day Program, a recruitment program working in conjunction with the Office of Admissions.

Vice President Chris Clark, can be credited with overhauling the Executive Cabinet, which in prior years has been less effective. Clark is also working with Board of Trustee Member Bernie Kosar on off-campus vendor’s Cane Card usage.

Speaker of the Senate Carlos Echeverri and Speaker Pro-Tempore Justice Walker lead the legislative branch of Student Government. Under their guidance, the University has seen a multitude of improvements including a new pathway between the Ungar building and McArthur Engineering, a new registration procedure for Residence Halls, improved drainage throughout campus, and the creation of new laundry facilities in the residential colleges, to name a few. Echeverri has been the vocal leader on the living wage policy for contracted employees. In addition, Walker has revived the Student Health Advisory Committee, and is restructuring it to become an umbrella to all organizations involved with the health professions.

Previous articles have attacked Student Government’s ability to communicate with the students and vise versa. The editors specifically mention the availability of Echeverri. Well, they must have not bothered to venture from their office in search of him. He can usually be found in either the SG office, the International Lounge or the Association for Commuter Students office. Actually, the only person to be in the SG office more often than Echeverri, is the Student Government Secretary Gloria Copper, who would be happy to take a message for him or any other SG member. In addition Echeverri has office hours and his personal cell phone number posted in the SG office.

The previous editorial endorsing the ticket of Senators Vance Aloupis and Minal Ahson, commended them for their previous work and experiences, but failed to accurately depict their roles in SG. The editorial did however report one thing correctly; they can give a voice to the under-represented minority populations on campus. In fact, Ahson’s input is usually only heard when a small organization, particularly those under C.O.I.S.O. (which she is the senator for) comes to Senate for Co-sponsorship. As for Aloupis, his voice can usually be heard informing Senate of his other endeavors, such as Up Till Dawn and the Get Out the Vote Campaign. His enthusiasm might be contagious, but as Governor Howard Dean knows all to well, enthusiasm can only take you so far.

Last Wednesday’s Presidential Debate left no clear-cut winner in the upcoming elections. It only seemed to narrow the field from eight to four; the four with not only drive and desire, but the Student Government experience to get the job done. I advocate to everyone reading this to get accurate information, meet the candidates, and judge each platform for yourself. Don’t vote on empty promises and impossible dreams, but rather clear, well-defined, practicable ideas. As for the editors and writers of this paper, I suggest you learn to research an article before you publish it.

Eric Frankel

Parliamentarian, Student Government Senate

With 30,000 tickets a day being purchased in advance, Oscar-winning director Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ release date is tomorrow, Ash Wednesday. The Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish community have criticized the Gibson film as depicting the crucifixion of Christ in a manner that would incite anti-Semitism. Despite criticism and opposition from liberal media, the film will debut in the United States in over 3,500 theaters, with 800 possibly being added. This marks the widest opening ever of a subtitled picture, Variety reported, and is remarkable for an independent film (Gibson personally donated $25 million after Hollywood production studios refused to support it).

The Passion of the Christ has now been the focus of continued attacks from liberal organizations and the liberal community, despite many members of the cast and crew, including the screenwriter, being from the Jewish community. According to Alan Sereboff, a Jewish-American screenwriter and filmmaker, the movie is not anti-Semitic and “will not create a single bigot or anti-Semite. It may, however, reveal them.” He continues to add, “As a Jew, I left the movie feeling a greater sense of kinship and closeness to my Christian brothers and sisters than I ever thought imaginable.”

With the wide variety of sentiments from both the Christian and Jewish communities, as well as liberal and conservative organizations, one thing is certain: failed attempts of submission, in the political correctness context, by Hollywood production companies appears to be censorship, rather than tolerance for originality and creativeness despite offensiveness. Is that not liberal thought at heart?

“I would hope that fellow Jews and Christians alike would see the importance in respecting your rights to create and share whatever vision you choose, and the hypocrisy in the attempts to censure of said rights,” said Sereboff. To remark that Passion is simply a film assigning blame or finger-pointing is analogous of stating that Gladiator was simple a film about Romans’ cruelty to animals and obsession with lion fighting, or Ben-Hur was simply about chariots.

“I cannot recall a film that has had such a profound effect on my understanding of history, religion and, perhaps most importantly, what we as human beings are capable of in relation to our treatment of one another,” wrote Sereboff.

For more information, visit www.thepassionofthechrist.com and www.passion-movie.com.

Nathalia Gillot is can be contacted at n.gillot@umiami.edu.

So, it’s over. The girls are gone. In their wake, the Sex and the City foursome have left us with nothing but idle time on Sunday evenings. As I sit here and write this column, on the Saturday afternoon before Sunday’s finale, I have no idea what is going to happen to Carrie, but I do know this: what made Sex and the City so successful had nothing to do with sex per se and everything to do with the ties that bound four different, yet complementary, women together as they traversed life’s path, one Manolo at a time.

Undoubtedly, we will miss the eccentric Carrie’s philosophical outlook on life, Samantha’s raunchy escapades, darling Charlotte’s navet and Miranda’s biting cynicism. It’s practically a given that we will cherish the girls’ fashionable jaunts through the streets of Manhattan and, as of late, Brooklyn; not that I’m biased, but no other city in the world, not even gay old Paree, could have inspired the girls with as much panache as did New York; it was the fifth star of the show.

But what about those enduring friendships? Carrie said her friends were akin to family, being that they were the “people that you always come home to,” her chosen family. Samantha was at least 10 years older than the other three, and Greenwich-bred Charlotte was the epitome of a blue-blood. Yet, somehow it just worked. It worked so well that even Big, in a last ditch effort to rekindle his romance with Carrie, realized that Miranda, Samantha and Charlotte were “the loves of her (Carrie’s) life…” and that a guy was “…just lucky to come in fourth…” if at all. A supportive all-female friendship that didn’t revolve around men and envy, and instead on love, support and caring – true tenets of a real friendship – unheard of!

If one takes nothing away from Sex and the City’s spectacular six years, at least grasp that authentic friendships span the numerous tests of boyfriends, miscarriage, divorce, cancer, overdue bills, tried and not-so-true engagement rings, post-it notes and birthday dinners. Recognize that, yes, people flat out suck sometimes, but life is too short to skip cocktails and dwell on your misery, and it is way more than possible to have your cake and eat it too while juggling work, relationships and your new Fendi baguette. And finally, in the words of Carrie, just remember that it is more than appropriate to attend a baseball game just to “smoke and drink at two in the afternoon without judgment,” because, well, you can. Goodbye, girls!

Vanessa Cutler can be contacted at v.cutler@umiami.edu.

Finally, after over a decade of squabbling, the University of Miami and UM Neighbors’ Homeowners Association came to an agreement to create University Village, a facility comprised of apartments that will house upwards of 800 upperclassmen and grad students.

So, what does it all mean?

On the positive front, a couple things. It’s no secret that on-campus housing is in high demand – at UM and elsewhere – and providing townhouse-style housing will no doubt create a buzz of interest that the community bathrooms in the towers have yet to achieve. Likewise, it will bring more graduate students who previously had to battle through notorious morning traffic closer to campus.

The problem is that UM gets along better with FSU than it does with the Gables. And, keeping in mind that the University Village has been in planning and discussion phases since the days of Miami Vice, it’s a safe bet that construction will not go through without some childish altercations between the school and the city.

What’s worse, there isn’t exactly what I would call an abundance of land around the UM campus, so why would we waste it on two and three-story housing? I know, I know – the Gables would frown even more upon a tower-like structure protruding from the University Village site, but from a common sense standpoint, why not use the $40 million to renovate or restructure the on-campus apartment area?

This is the school’s opportunity to improve the housing that surrounds the notoriously empty Convocation Center, which may be the biggest waste of $50 million I’ve ever seen other than Gigli. Think about it: over the course of a few years, we could have a large, Eaton-like residential college where the apartment area currently stands, a parking garage to help make it look like people actually go to the Convocation Center, and – get this – a good standing relationship with Coral Gables.

Instead of University Village, I propose sorority housing. Given the alternative of 1000 students roaming around University Village, why not give the sororities a legitimate center for activity that isn’t across campus from the frats?

There would still be plenty of room for faculty housing that the current University Village plan calls for. A major social dilemma would be resolved in terms of the sorority housing. The Gables would have fewer students to worry about. The Convocation Center might actually fill to its capacity.

And I’d be filthy rich.

Surrounded by sorority girls, of course.

Ben Minkus can be contacted at

b.minkus2umiami.edu.

Re: Editorial “Vote Vance”, Feb. 20

To the editor:
Your editorial supporting the candidacy of Vance Aloupis for Student Government President has reached yet another level of unprofessional journalism. Besides the fact that a newspaper’s endorsement violates its role as an objective source of information, the statements made about the candidates in this particular editorial are based more on one person’s or one group’s perception of the candidates than on their platforms and proposals. I find the description of Don Donelson as someone who “comes across as an angry ivy-league reject” to be insulting to the candidate and to the entire student body. My perception is that if The Miami Hurricane can insult a candidate, it can insult any UM student. It is not the role of The Miami Hurricane to publish anything that will degrade a candidate. The editorial criticizes Chris Clark, Carlos Echeverri and Billy Bludgus, saying that experience in Student Government alone does not make them prepared to take over the presidency. Then why does the editor also criticize Don Donelson and Scott Wacholtz for not having Student Government experience? I would also like to know if anyone on the editorial board has proof that Peter Maki has been “delegating responsibility within his fraternity.” Although I have the utmost respect for Vance Aloupis and all of the Student Government candidates, it seems that these attacks on behalf of The Miami Hurricane may have been motivated by some hidden agenda. I strongly urge The Miami Hurricane to practice journalistic professionalism when writing future editorials.

Daniel I. Pedreira
Sophomore

The time has come for the editorial staff to clarify to our esteemed readers what an editorial is. Apparently, we have to go through this every year after one of our pieces raises a few eyebrows around campus.

An editorial is an opinion and an opinion is not news. If the average reader wanted to be informed about the different presidential candidates, their tickets, their backgrounds and their performance in the debates, we had articles covering that in both of last week’s issues. On the other hand, in the editorial, we must take a stance that we feel will best benefit our community. Most professional newspapers endorse a candidate in relevant elections, and The Hurricane has traditionally done the same.

Clearly, we may make mistakes. After all, we endorsed Sadowski for president last year, and we all know how that turned out. However, we stand by our endorsement. At election time last year, Sadowski stood out from the other candidates and had a very detailed and well-researched platform that was quite feasible. Unfortunately, he didn’t fulfill his promises or employ his full potential. Too bad – it doesn’t mean that our editorial staff was wrong in endorsing him, it just means that Sadowski has a weakness of not following through on his good ideas.

Student leaders who have the courage to run for visible SG positions like that of president are admirable not only for the time, effort and money that it takes to run for office, but also for putting themselves on the line during campaigning and elections. However, this is a conscious risk taken by the candidates, and with it comes criticism. We – the editorial staff and the student body – don’t criticize simply for criticism’s sake; we do it to point out weaknesses that may go unnoticed to the average, uninformed student. Furthermore, whoever does win this election should be prepared to face further criticism in the future – it comes with the territory.

Some think that our last editorial should have just talked about the candidate we endorsed as opposed to mentioning all of the other candidates’ weaknesses. This would have been possible, had one of the candidates stood head and shoulders above the rest to give us enough positive aspects to talk about. However, because it took the editorial staff several days of discussion, including personal interviews with all the candidates and research on their experience and platforms, to decide whom to endorse, we felt it was important to touch upon all the candidates and why we ultimately hadn’t chosen them.

If a consequence of that editorial was to spark controversy and get people really talking about the elections and the issues at hand, then we have done our job. Someone has to be strong enough to take a stance, particularly after last week’s debates and campaigns, regrettably homogeneous and bland, were not thought-provoking enough to make a difference. Future candidates should take the hint.

The real test to these ambitious young men will be what they do – or don’t do – once this election is over. If the seven candidates who are not elected follow through on their ideas despite being out of office, then they will be the true leaders of the University. They will prove the skeptics wrong and show that they are doing what they believe in and not just what looks good in a resum. Otherwise, they will simply give us more to write about in our now-clarified editorials.