Wednesday
February 2nd, 2005
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Opinion
Editorial
Public access, community will greatly suffer if Insight
cuts funding by 71 percent
Like the playground poor sport,
Insight Communications is taking its marbles and going home.
Because the UIS Housing Department decided to switch its cable service
from Insight to Campus TeleVideo this spring, Insight is retaliating by
threatening to pull 71 percent of its support for Public access (Channel
4) programming produced by UIS.
In the past, Insight has provided $170,000 annually to subsidize public
access programming. In retaliation they are now only offering $50,000,
which is $5,000 less than the amount offered to public access when it
began in 1985.
According to its website, “Insight is as dedicated to serving the
community as we are to our individual customers.”
This statement directly contradicts the actions Insight is taking against
the university and the community. Public access has been a part of the
community for 20 years and has always been operated by the university.
It provides a free service to both the Springfield and UIS communities;
giving media access for those who may otherwise not get media coverage,
providing free education programming to members of the Springfield community,
and providing a forum to talk about issues in the community.
Basically, Insight is in their business right to pull funding from the
university. There is nothing the university or city of Springfield can
do to prevent the funding cut because Insight is only required by the
city to provide three channels for public use. However, Insight is unjustly
punishing the community for negotiations gone badly between them and the
university.
According to Jerry Burkhart, director of the office of electronic media,
Insight and the university have been working on a separate contract for
public access instead of having it part of the contract with the city.
The two entities were still in the process of negotiating a contract.
In April, Insight made an oral agreement with the university to continue
funding public access as the same level. However, after UIS Housing switched
its cable providers, Insight decided to cut public access’ funding.
The cable provided to UIS Housing and public access funding should be
two separate issues. But, the power of the all mighty dollar has made
Insight pack up part of its funding and go elsewhere.
This is not to say that the university is not at all to blame for what
has happened. With Insight packaging the cable issue and the public access
funding issue into one large issue, the university should have used more
foresight and communication to prevent such a devastating blow to public
access.
Housing officials said that the academic departments conducting negotiations
with Insight about public access and the cable committee met independently
and were relatively unaware of each other’s existence until each
group’s negotiations were near completion. Perhaps more communication
could have allowed these groups to negotiate simultaneously with Insight
to try to prevent the public access funding cut.
Regardless who is to blame, it is no doubt that the ones who will suffer
the most are the members of the Springfield community, as they will not
have as much access to the media and information as they have in the past.
The student workers employed by the office of electronic media, responsible
for maintaining public access, will also be largely and negatively affected
by the projected budget slaughter. Hours could be cut, jobs could be lost—which
could be devastating to the university amidst the already declining number
of student jobs on campus.
The number of programs would probably have to be cut due to the planned
71 percent budget cut. Burkhart said that the office of electronic media
has already contacted many of the people who currently run programs on
public access because if the budget cuts are implemented, it will greatly
affect a number of the people and what programs they can have on public
access.
Basically, with a 71 percent budget cut, it will be hard for public access
to provide the same quality and award-winning programming that it has
in the past.
Hopefully none of this happens. The office of electronic media says it
is going to try to fight the budget cuts and, if necessary, find funding
elsewhere. Housing officials and electronic media officials say negotiations
with Insight are ongoing.
Hopefully the backlash from the university and the community will cause
Insight to rethink their business move. If not, public access should look
for funding elsewhere, though it might be hard to find.
Be
proud of our Lincoln Heritage
By
Carly Hawkins - Columnist
Look, I’ll admit it –
I was obsessed with Abraham Lincoln when I was a kid.
I have a million books about him, from stuff about his childhood to stuff
about fighting in the Black Hawk War to his “Wit and Wisdom.”
I’ve been to every Lincoln site except for Gettysburg and his Kentucky
birthplace.
I went – in period 1850’s dress – to a re-enactment
of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. I earned a patch in Girl Scouts for a
Lincoln activity. One of the scariest nightmares I’ve ever had involved
John Wilkes Booth. I even went to Lincoln Elementary – with the
unfortunate mascot of the “Senators,” something Lincoln never
even was.
So it would be fair, in other words, to say I’m a bit of a Lincoln
nerd. Maybe more than a bit.
Since the seventh grade or so, though – when I outgrew my pioneer
outfit, I guess – my love for all things Lincoln fell by the wayside
in favor of other pursuits, like boy bands and my hair and modern politics.
And I’m afraid, at that point, I became like so many other Illinoisans
who take for granted our state’s role in producing one of history’s
most famous leaders.
It’s actually relatively easy, especially growing up in Central
Illinois. Much the same way that New Englanders must easily bypass historical
markers about the Revolution, so do those of us who were sent to Lincoln’s
house and law firm and tomb and the Old State Capitol on field trips from
the time we were very young. And now that I live in Springfield, it’s
even easier – everything is named after the man, from the airport
to (at one time) a program at UIS.
Over the summer, I spent a lot of time downtown, and I was always amazed
at the number of tourists who seemed to be milling about – taking
pictures of themselves with the new statue by 6th and Adams and then presumably
heading off to see the Lincoln Ledger at BankOne or the Lincoln Pew at
the Presbyterian Church. I didn’t really see the draw anymore of
coming all the way to Springfield just to see the Lincoln family outhouse.
Lincoln is so interwoven with the fabric of this state, and particularly
this town, that we can’t even discern it anymore. I have a feeling
that is all about to change, with the dawning of yet another Lincoln site
– the Presidential Library.
Now, us townies may think “Great, some more crummy Lincoln stuff
in a pretty building that is wrecking traffic on 6th Street.” But
when the opening of the Library and the Museum get covered in the New
York Times or on C-Span, people from around the world are seeing the story
of Lincoln the Great Emancipator’s life, collected in a new and
inventive way.
Be prepared for the onslaught in April, when the museum portion opens.
But more importantly, take some time to visit it yourself. Be prepared
to rediscover the life and times of this great man that Springfield can
claim as their own. Be prepared to be proud of that heritage.
Is
Dean too right for the DNC?
By
Ron Felten - General Assignment Reporter
With the Democratic National
Committee set to select its new chairman in less than two weeks, left-leaning
politicos are anxiously waiting to see if former Vermont governor Howard
Dean, who lost the Democratic Party’s endorsement for president
last year to John Kerry, will blow what at least appears to be another
shoe-in situation.
While speculation about Dean’s chances of victory in the race for
the DNC’s top spot will surely be floating about until the Democrats
makes their selection, a more important question should be debated –
is Howard Dean too conservative for a party that so desperately needs
to distance itself from the GOP?
All “yarghs” aside, Dean is no stranger to political controversy.
Dean’s campaign all but died when, in a desperate attempt to broaden
the party’s base, he said he wanted to be “the candidate for
guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.” Even though
he was attempting to represent a party that is supposed to be committed
to a progressive, socially conscious agenda, Dean did a better job of
coming across like a say-anything used car salesman than a legitimate
candidate for president.
This all begs the question of why now? Why, after two DNC snubs –
once, as I have already mentioned, when he lost the party’s endorsement
to Kerry and yet again when Kerry chose the inexperienced John Edwards,
a freshman senator from North Carolina, to be his running mate in the
2004 election – do the Dems now think Dean might be the right face
for their party?
Well, despite his shortcomings – and, boy, are they short –
Dean does have the energy and passion needed to resurrect the reeling
DNC. Or maybe it is more than his feistiness that makes him an attractive
candidate; perhaps Dean has always been right for the job and only now,
after a devastating defeat last November at the hands of Republicans,
are the Democrats finally coming to their senses.
With a few exceptions, Dean is not afraid to make known the differences
between Democrats and Republicans. And, even though they played it safe
during the last election (and in 2000, for that matter), this is precisely
what the Dems need to be doing now if they hope to even have a chance
of winning the presidency in 2008. Instead of appealing to moderates and
swing voters, which obviously did not work last year, the DNC needs to
embrace a word that, as of late, has become akin to the plague –
liberal.
If the Dems want a solution, they need to be honest about the problem:
a majority of those who don’t vote are on the left half of the political
spectrum. And the reason leftists don’t vote has nothing to do with
them being lazy or apathetic; rather, many people stay home on election
day because they feel alienated by the lack of attention their issues
receive from the mainstream candidates, who are busy selling out by frequently
claiming to be pro-equal rights (but against gay marriage) or anti-war
(but in favor of keeping US troops indefinitely engaged in Iraq).
If the Democrats would just listen to the collective Left long enough
to realize this, they could finally stop wasting their money and time
begging suburban soccer moms to vote for their candidate because he has
the best hair. I assure you, Howard Dean does not support such a naive
and downright ignorant strategy.
Dean understands the importance of reaching out to those who are usually
neglected by two-party politics and this is precisely why he was able
to shatter fund-raising records and garner a huge grassroots following
during last year’s primaries. While Dean admittedly has his weaknesses,
he has the vision the DNC so desperately needs – one that includes
all leftists.
Dean, more than any of the other candidates running for DNC chairman,
has the drive to rebuild the party and the courage to stand up to the
radical, neoconservative policies of George W. Bush and his administration.
It was Dean, after all, who unabashedly spoke out against the war in Iraq
before it became acceptable (or even fashionable) to do so.
On February 12, the DNC will make a decision that will affect the future
of the Democratic Party and, consequently, the future of this country.
As Yogi Berra once said, “It’s deja vu all over again.”
As it was during the 2004 Democratic primaries, now only Howard Dean can
stop Howard Dean. For the sake of our democracy, I hope he survives this
time. Because, while Dean may not always be the right man for the job,
this particular job is right for him.
Letter
to the Editor
Al Jazeera is not News
There is nothing wrong with diversity, tolerance, and equality. Muslim
students at UIS deserve to be treated as equals, but the “news”
station Al Jazeera crosses the line between news and propaganda. The following
are few of the things Al Jazeera has “reported” on.
1.) The United States government knew of the earthquake in advance and
failed to warn Asian countries.
2.) Indian and U.S. military testing of weapons triggered the earthquake
and caused the tsunami. (An Egyptian magazine included Israel, too.)
3.) Aliens caused the recent tsunami as a way to correct the planet's
"wobbly" rotation. (This is my favorite!)
4.) The Australian and Thai governments deliberately ignored warnings
about the earthquake.
5.) “Several Palestinian resistance organizations, such as Hamas,
Islamic Jihad and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades started to send self-sacrificing
fighters, whose duty it was to blow themselves up inside Israel, taking
as many people with them as possible.” (Aljazeera.net The Second
Intifada Posted December 8 2003)
Al Jazeera has made a habit of presenting America as a barbaric oppressor.
This is not an attack on Muslim students or Islam. Muslim students at
UIS deserve a news station and I will be the last person to oppose their
right to have one, but Al Jazeera is not news. Every day our soldiers
are dying to defend our freedom and Al Jazeera is the propaganda machine
for our enemies. To give this “news” station any medium at
our University would be an insult to our solders fighting overseas. Students
at UIS would do well to remember that many of those soldiers are Muslims
and Al Jazeera’s propaganda is placing their lives in greater danger.
Michael Tosh
President of the Society of Conservative Students (SCS)
Be proud of our Lincoln Heritage
Is Dean too right for the DNC?