I am writing to agree with Manuel Magana's letter "'U' should salt walks instead of using sand" (11/14/96). I think the University's use of sand is an aberration. My friends and I have discussed this problem for the two and a half years that we have been here and we all disagree with this policy.
I understand that sand is used as a supplement to the salt and is used for traction when it is slippery, but it simply turns to mud and gets everything dirty. For example, if you have a new pair of shoes, forget it - they're ruined by the mud, your pants get back-splash from the mud, and the mud gets tracked into all of the buildings on the floors as well as getting tracked back to your dorm room or house.
On top of paying the outrageous tuition to go to this school, I do not feel that I should have to purchase a new pair of shoes as a result of the University's snow policies. Mud may be cheaper and more environmental to use than all salt, however, I feel that I pay more than enough money for this school to use salt and not ruin my clothes.
David Sirna
LSA junior
It is sad to see that people like Damon Kitterman must resort to transparently illogical arguments and pretenses of compassion to masquerade their own ignorance and homophobia ("Red Cross does not discriminate," 11/15/96). Any astute reader who considered the wantonly deficient reasoning behind banning gay men from donating blood would unquestionably come to the inescapable conclusion that the Red Cross does indeed unnecessarily discriminate.
While it is true that HIV has infected the gay male community more than it has others, it is also true that even an active gay man who engaged only in what is considered safe sex has such a small chance of contracting the disease that it is negligible.
Simply being an active gay man is not reason enough for being considered a high-risk individual. It is the act of having unsafe sex that causes a person to be a high-risk individual.
Because HIV education has been directed disproportionately at the gay community, it is not surprising to learn that heterosexuals, on average, are much less likely to have safe sex than gays are.
If the Red Cross were truly nondiscriminatory, it would only disallow individuals, gay or straight, who had unsafe sex to give blood, but allow sexually active gay men who practiced safe sex to donate.
While the charge that "there is still no absolute 100-percent effective method of testing blood for HIV" is true, I would ask how many tests for any type of condition are absolute 100-percent effective.
The undeniable fact is that, thanks to modern techniques, current methods of testing for HIV are so effective that the chance of an erroneous result is so small that it is almost negligible. It is because it is not zero that the Red Cross can legitimately ask high-risk donors not to give. But, as clearly shown, simply being an active gay man is not reason enough for being placed in that category.
As a gay man who has engaged only in safe sex, has been tested for HIV (albeit perhaps unnecessarily), and is absolutely 100-percent sure of being HIV-negative, I too am saddened that I cannot help others who truly need it. It is because of blind bigotry that such an unfortunate situation occurs.
Finally, I would like to clear up the blatantly untrue allegations that Kitterman has laid claim to regarding Ryan LaLonde. LaLonde is on no crusade to improve his leadership image. He doesn't need to be - he already is an esteemed and well-respected leader in the University community who is a selfless, hard-working and vocal activist.
Second, he is not "in charge" of Queer Unity Project. He serves on a nonhierarchical Planning Team at the same level as about six others, including myself. It is the member base of QUP that is truly "in charge" of what happens - the planning team is simply the coordination. I hope that Kitterman will be reputable enough, in the future, to be at least vaguely truthful when he loathsomely lambastes good people like LaLonde.
Cory Fryling
LSA sophomore
This is in reply to the recent Miller on Tap column ("'20/20 is decadent and depraved TV," 11/13/96) regarding "20/20" and other talk-TV shows. In the end of the column, Miller maintains that "... the country will remain stupid as long as you treat it as such" - the "you" in this sentence referring to Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters and their colleagues.
I beg to differ. I believe that the country will remain stupid as long as the country wishes to remain stupid. The fact that these TV talk shows are trash, and the fact that there are so many of them, does not mean that there are not intelligent and educational alternatives (which, incidentally, are being broadcast simultaneously).
But the reason that there are so many of these shows and they have been on the air for so long is simple: we watch them. Period. If we didn't watch them, the ratings of these shows would crash, the advertisers would pull out, and they would go off the air.
However, we (and by "we" I mean regular, as well as occasional, viewers - I watch them sometimes, too - I'm not claiming innocence here, either.) like it! We love the scandal! The sleazier the subject, the more riveted we are to the TV. Seems that there are lots of people who claim that they hate trash TV, but the ratings are the highest for the trashiest shows!
Someone must like it, or they wouldn't be on. So, here is what I propose: Shut it off! We can change the quality of our television programming not by bitching about it, but by boycotting it. Try it. Give up "The Ro Show" for a week. Silence Montel and Ricki Lake for a while. Give Oprah and Gordon Elliot and Jerry Springer and Maury Povich an open-ended hiatus. And quit watching Jenny Jones altogether.
This chick doesn't even know what the hell goes on with her show, and is currently trying to disavow any responsibility for the murder of one of her guests! And, then, she deserves air time because ... why? Get this sleaze queen off the air! You have the power - the choice is up to you.
Jean Adams
LSA junior
I would like to thank Deano Smith for his letter to the editor titled "Give Property" (11/13/96). It brought to my attention a problem that I thought the Ann Arbor Transit Authority was solving.
Two months ago a truck crashed into the bus shelter on the corner of Washtenaw and South University.
Since that time, I assumed the AATA was in the process of replacing it with a new one. Smith's letter informed me that the AATA needed some more property in order to build a shelter up to current code.
I can't understand why, if this is the case, the AATA didn't call and ask us for our help. My fraternity would be glad to help out the community by letting the AATA "borrow" some property so the residents of our community don't freeze waiting for the bus.
What surprises me is that in the past two months, no one besides Smith brought this information out. This problem could have been solved a long time ago if someone from the AATA would have informed us of the situation.
Now I just hope that we can solve it before the winter months get too harsh!
Alex Lengemann
President, Sigma Alpha Epsilon