The Current Online » Letters

LETTER: BAN JOHNSON FIELDS WOULD BENEFIT STUDENTS

Web Editor — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 03:48:21 +0000

Dear Editor:

The March 6 edition of The Current featured a front page article on the proposed addition of two baseball fields on the MCC-Longview campus. As with most proposed changes in the status quo, those in opposition or in favor come forward to express their thoughts. As the Athletic Director who oversees the program that these fields would benefit, I’d like to expand on the positive aspects that this project would provide to MCC-Longview.

As your article outlined, an outside group has offered to build a new baseball complex on our campus, a donation amounting to between $6 million and $10 million. This construction will cost the MCC college district and Longview nothing. In exchange for the donation, Longview would allow the Ban Johnson League to use the fields several evenings a week from early June through mid-July. These fields would belong to Longview and the athletic department/baseball team would have control over the use of these fields at all times.

The new fields would drastically improve the quality of facilities we offer our students, reduce the amount of water used and all costs associated with maintaining existing field as well as provide fields that are safer than what we currently use. Lights on the field would allow us to schedule our games later in the day so fewer classes would be missed by the athletes. I anticipate a reduction in the travel budget as more teams will want to play at Longview due to later start times and less chance of rainouts due to the artificial surface. In the off-season these new fields would allow the baseball program to offer camps, clinics, show-cases, and tournaments for revenue production. With the combination of a lower up-front cost to maintain the fields and the potential for revenue production, these fields would benefit our budget.

As a comprehensive community college, MCC-Longview offers a variety of co-curricular programs. Whether one chooses to be involved with forensics, drama, athletics, newspaper, student government, or one of our many campus clubs, Longview students can enhance their college experience by joining one of these programs. All of these programs, although offered outside of the traditional classroom setting, provide invaluable lessons and experiences for our students and are an important component of our college mission. To our students these are not “fringe programs” and they should not be marginalized. MCC-Longview is fortunate to be one of 571 community colleges in the country offering athletics as an optional co-curricular program for their students. In my experience, all of the programs at Longview, academic and co-curricular, strive to excel. Our baseball program has done an outstanding job recently in representing MCC-Longview at the national level, winning the NJCAA National Championship in 2007 and placing 5th in the national tournament in 2008.

When one weighs the plusses and minuses of the proposed project, the dollar amount or the “fairness” of the ear-marked donation, budgets, or the location of the fields, one should not forget that ultimately students would benefit the most from the collaboration between MCC-Longview and the Ban Johnson League.

John O’Connell
Longview Athletic Director

LETTER: BAN JOHNSON FIELDS WOULD DISRUPT LV’S MISSION

Web Editor — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:49:25 +0000

Dear Editor:

The headline of the March 6 edition of The Current trumpeted, “LV debates baseball proposal.” The Ban Johnson Baseball League plans to raise money, at least $6 million, to build two fields on Longview College property, with that and more, an indoor training facility, and if ten million is raised, then they will get around to putting artificial turf on the current Lakers Field.

“The fields are part of a restoration project,” according to developer David Gale—restoration of what? The original Fenway Park? The original Ebbets Field? And just how are those fields related to the Longview Campus donated by the Long family for educational purposes? How will they blend with the Longview campus—with brown bricks and a blue line at top? The “empty field” so desired as the site is the scenic back-drop of the campus where two dozen deer browse all year around. They won’t feed on artificial turf.

Whether contributors will give only to arts or baseball is a false choice because one contributes to the core mission of the college and the other does not. “Why would we turn down a $6 million gift?” I can tell you why, and that is because the “gift” has strings attached. During the league’s summer season evening play, all its noises will pound against the large northwest windows of the Science-Technology Building, disrupting classes. Will the harried teacher be able to request that the cheering audience please be a little quieter? Will anyone else be able to use the fields during the season, or any other time for that matter?

Run-off will be piped into Little Mouse Creek between the fields and the Recreation Center, contributing to already deepening erosion.

To would-be contributors, I recommend giving to the heart of the educational mission of Longview, not its periphery. This is the time to heighten the educational experience at Longview, not drown it out. Let’s keep the “view” in Longview.

Sincerely,
Stephen Reinbold
Biology Instructor, MCC-Longview

LETTER: VIEW HIGH DRIVE 2

Web Editor — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 06:02:37 +0000

How about a follow-up with a dose of reality?

Last issue (Sep. 12, 2009) you wrote, “Preying on the weak…It is 7:57 a.m., and now I have been pulled over for speeding on View High Drive on my way to class.”

You know that in reality, it is your own fault!

Accountability is a precious commodity that is taught by every school, and we are introduced to the concept in kindergarten and first grade! We were taught that there is a time and place for each event, and not very much leeway is given. Recess, lunch, and the end of the school day were each at the exact same time, as we breathlessly anticipated the exact moment that the bell would ring.

IN THE REAL WORLD, we are encouraged to be on time. An employer will give you your schedule and you will be expected to be on time each day to work. I do not expect to be allowed to keep a job if I cannot be on time each day. Let’s all get REAL! If I desire to be on time every day, then a little planning is in order. I may get stuck in traffic on any given day, so I must allow extra time each day to cover that contingency instead changing into PANIC mode (because the traffic slowed me down today). The WORST thing that could happen is that I might get a reputation for always being on time.

I have noticed that the odds of getting to class on time is poor if I ARRIVE on campus at 7:55 a.m. for an 8:00 a.m. class … because I expect that I will spend a minimum of

10 minutes finding a parking spot, parking, and I will need an additional 5-10 minutes to walk to my class. It sure seems easy to blame the police … but consider THE IDIOT that attempts (usually successfully) to merge into the right lane at 3rd St. and View High Drive at the last possible moment, swerving brazenly into the right lane and cutting off those that chose to get into the lane to wait their turn. I place this kind of inconsiderate driver into the very same category as those who ‘speed’ up View High Drive – in both cases, a little consideration and planning goes a long way. Maybe the police can move to that area and ticket for aggressive driving or WORSE.

REALITY is that we have rules of the road in place for everyone’s safety. “Barely pushing the limits (September 12, 2008, Opinion page) still equates to breaking the rules. Whether or not you like the rules, I personally have never gotten ticketed for obeying the posted speed limit. I don’t have to worry about having points assessed against my license. I do not have to think about hiring a lawyer to help me out in court (at additional personal cost). I note that the “average” driver on View High Drive, regardless of the time of day, exceeds the posted speed limit – that’s why the police set up the speed ‘traps’.

For me (and for most of us), the bottom line is this: If I get ticketed three times for speeding, on the same road, at a minimum cost of $115 per ticket (plus the increase in my insurance rates), I’d certainly consider altering my habit of speeding and my schedule instead of continuing to get fined (and eventually losing my driving privileges) and be late for class or work.
By the way, I have never been ticketed for speeding. Following the speed limit works every time it’s tried.

-Anonymous

LETTER: VIEW HIGH DRIVE

Web Editor — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 06:01:23 +0000

As a long-standing resident of Lee’s Summit, remembering View High Drive as a windy, hilly, two-lane country road, I was excited when it was improved into a nice four-lane divided road. (I also attended LCC in 1970.) We now had great traffic flow from Lee’s Summit to I-470 and college students/visitors into Lee’s Summit have a great way in. Roughly, three years ago the Kansas City, Missouri police started these speed traps which are set up during the middle of the day, not during any rush hour. I have witnessed numerous individuals being flagged to stop at these speeding traps. The root problem is the “old” View High Drive speed limit of 40 mph was never updated when the road was improved. As many of you know, you must make a conscious effort to watch your speed to keep your car at 40 when driving this clear, visible, divided road. I don’t believe speeding at 47-50 mph is intentional. Another speed trap was in place, yesterday, Sept. 25 in the morning.

I decided it was time to get City attention on this problem:

Issue 1: View High Drive is actually under the jurisdiction of Kansas City, so I called the Public Works Department of Kansas City, Mo., and registered a complaint. In my opinion, the speed limit needs to be increased. This resulted in a Case number being assigned for a “traffic study” which is to be started within the next 2 weeks. (The original speed of 40 mph was last officially set in 1978.)

Issue 2: I am sending my concerns regarding Kansas City, Mo., police doing these regular speed traps to the KCMO officer in charge. While I do not condone speeding, I do feel that the legal system needs to ensure reasonable and practicable laws are in place. As coincidence would have it, I was at the college last night to teach a class and picked up “The Current.” I was so glad to see the student’s frustration vented (“Preying on the Weak,” Sep. 12, 2008) so well – GOOD JOB! I am enclosing a copy of this article to the office in charge. Hopefully, our combined efforts will achieve needed changes.

-Cindy Taylor

LETTER: ARGUMENT AGAINST ABORTION

Web Editor — Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:08:44 +0000

Please forward this to Farhan Zahid the author of, “Republicans assault women’s pro-choice rights.” Although, Farhan, I am sure you have received your share of opposing views on abortion I ask that you would read this argument I received from www.carm.org. Your arguments were pretty weak in your article. What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive. Even one-celled creatures are alive. What is growing in the woman is more than a one-celled creature. The nature of the life in the woman is human. It is a product of human DNA, therefore it’s nature, and its essence is undeniably human baby. Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. Not all people have feet, hands, can walk and speak. They are humans because of their nature, their essence, not because of physical abilities or disabilities. A person born without arms and legs is still a human. A person who cannot is still human. A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is still human by nature and it is wrong to murder such a person. What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, a bird, or a fish. It has human nature. If it is not human in nature, then what nature is it? If it is not human in nature, then does it have a different nature than human? If so, then from where did it get this different nature since the only sources of its nature are human egg and a human sperm? Objection: A cell in the body has human DNA and is alive and it is okay to kill it. So, it doesn’t make any difference with a fetus. Though it is true that a cell in the human body has DNA and is alive, a cell (muscle cell, skin cell, etc.) has the nature of being only what it is – not a human. In other words, a muscle cell is by nature a muscle cell. A skin cell is by nature a skin cell. But, the fertilized egg of a human is by nature that very thing which becomes a fully developed human. Its nature is different than that of a muscle or skin cell because they do not grow into humans. Therefore, they are not the same thing. A fertilized human egg has the nature of human development and it is alive. This is not so with a muscle or skin cell. To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature. Therefore, abortion is killing a life, which is human by nature. Where, then, does the mother get the right to kill the human within her? A question for those who believe in abortion and that the life in the womb is not human. Is it okay to take a fertilized egg between a man and a woman and place it in the womb of a dog? If you say no, then why, if it is not human then it doesn’t matter, right? If you say no because it will become a human then you admit that it has human nature and is alive. If it is human in nature and alive, then you do not have the right to abort it. If you say it is all right, why is okay? -Richard Tuttle via Longview Current online

LETTER: ENTERTAINING POEM

Web Editor — Wed, 07 May 2003 23:35:42 +0000

I would first like to congratulate Shannon Callahan on his ability to put all of his thoughts about our President in an entertaining poem. I think that his skills are definitely improving.
Next, I would like to call attention to the fact that Shannon’s view of President Bush in wartime didn’t seem to go over well in [instructor and class withheld]. The article was being trashed by not only the students in the class, but the teacher [sex withheld]self. I tried to point out that although Shannon is quite controversial most of the time, he is exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. I was shut down quickly and told my opinions on anti-war sentiments were uniformed by the teacher [sex withheld]self. Isn’t that funny, I am a political science major and history buff, not to mention I just did 2 speeches about the pros and cons of going to war with Iraq.
In case you can’t tell, I am a little angry. The first day of class this same teacher complained to our class that corporate America refuses to employ obese[sex withheld], so [sex withheld] is left to teach college. I remember the day the same teacher announced to our class that Americans are lazy. Hmmm?
I understand that [class withheld] is hardly the forum to start a freedom of speech debate, but I walked in on it, I did not start it. I hope that the teacher rethinks how [sex withheld] allows [sex withheld] favorite students to have an opinion, and dismisses the opinions of those students [sex withheld] just tolerates. I left class as soon as [sex withheld] insulted my intelligence and cut me off. Shannon Callahan has a right to be against the war and some people need to lighten up and look at both sides of issues. How can we learn to reach conclusions without first questioning?

-Megan Wheeler

LETTER: Congratulations Shannon Callahan

Web Editor — Wed, 07 May 2003 23:34:25 +0000

I just wanted to write a letter to congratulate the Longview Current on being a well rounded, informative and entertaining college paper. Keep up the good work!
I especially would like to thank Shannon Callahan on his opinion article. It takes true courage to write on subjects generally opposed by the status quo. Anytime your writing elicits death threats from people too narrow-minded to accept the potential validity of someone else’s opinion, you are doing something great! I consider Shannon to be doing something very patriotic every time he writes his article: protecting the American value of free speech.

-Lydia Riley

LETTER: Black people throw out the racist jokes just as much as whites

Web Editor — Wed, 07 May 2003 23:33:10 +0000

I am writing in response to Brad Shelton’s article on Bringing Down The House. I have not yet seen this movie, and I do not really care your opinion on it. The part that really got me going was the fact that in the last line of the article you wrote, “It’s very sad to imagine it, especially in today’s time, that white America still finds racial humor, a funny concept.” I agree with this statement, but I think you should also include the flip side of this. What appears to me is that you are stating that white people think black people are funny, but black people think white people are fine. Yet, if you would watch the Original Kings of Comedy or BET’s Comicview, you would notice that these black comedians dog on how uptight white people are and every black person there is laughing. So before you make such a harsh, direct, statement like that, you ought to look at both sides of the coin.

-Name withheld

LETTERS: “Urban sex legends” ignores abstinence

Web Editor — Sat, 19 Apr 2003 00:09:48 +0000

I am writing this as a response to “Urban Sex Legends” (Feb. 28). I enjoyed reading the article and found it beneficial to educate Longview students about the myths associated with sexual behaviors. However, I was quite displeased with some of the myths that were not addressed.
Omitted Myth #1: Birth Control Pills are 100% effective. This is not true. Most doctors should tell you this. Some of them are even less than 90% effective. That means you have got better than a one in ten shot at being a parent.
Omitted Myth #2: Condoms prevent transference of all STDs. While we would all like to think so, condoms are not the end-all cure-all for our sexual protection. There is still serious question as to whether or not they work at all at preventing the transfer of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Some scientists have tested condoms and found that one in five fails. (Hicks, Benjamin The Myths About Condom Safety, Ingleside Press). That means that if your partner had an incurable STD, you have a 20% chance of contracting it each time you had sex.

What upset me most was the fact that the article failed to stress the benefits of abstinence. It merely accepted the fact that everyone was going to go off and have sex, so it would be better to educate the hormone-enraged masses about their safety than to try to persuade them to contemplate their lifestyle choices.
Omitted Truth: Outside of the Virgin Mary, no abstinent woman has ever become pregnant. No abstinent male has ever fathered a child. No abstinent man or woman has ever contracted an STD. The 100% success rate is hard to beat.
I hope you consider these thoughts when addressing issues pertaining to sex in future editions of The Longview Current.

- Andrew Fiedler

LETTERS: A million things that need to be understood

Web Editor — Sat, 19 Apr 2003 00:08:25 +0000

Your “I Hate Bush” poem has attracted readers.
It shows you need some respect for your country’s leaders.
Without the things our country has done,
You wouldn’t have freedom to rhyme and make fun.
Iraqis wouldn’t write a letter such as yours
Because soldiers would go knock on their doors
Taking them away and killing them,
Don’t you think that this is a sin?
Maybe you should retake History 101
To learn how things should be done.
I hope you understand where I’m coming from,
We’re saving their people, but you still shun.
You think Bush should quit and can it,
But yet you take your freedoms for granted.
If you don’t like the way this country runs,
Then pack your bags instead of making puns.
I think you should go get a mental check
Because at a time like this, Bush needs our respect.
Represent the meaning of the U.S. of A.
Freedom doesn’t come without a price to pay.

- Name Withheld