Hi again,
       Higa, Holmes and myself are going to get together with some other
members of exec tomorrow night at around 8pm in the lounge. We are going to
be talking about the future of SGA and where we want it to go. For those
senators that are interested in going, feel free to drop on by. If some of
you want to go and can't make it, email me and let me know. For those
others that don't want to go, this is not a mandatory meeting and you don't
have to be there.

Hope to see ya'll there,
Binh

At 03:14 PM 11/16/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Sir?-
>I find your reply to be most disheartening.  It disturbs me to know that
>you are so over-eager to take what you are handed and be content with it.
>Haven't we at least got to TRY to change the way things are when we see
>they are wrong?
>And no, I do not believe that the Free Press' opinion page was an
>inappropriate place in which to express dissatisfaction with their
>reporting (you will note it is a fairly common function of opinion pages).
>The unbalanced nature of student representation in the Burlington press is
>an important aspect of how they perpetuate such negative community
>perceptions of UVM students.
>As for your third paragraph, in which you attempted to articulate some sort
>of final grand position, I will tell you only that reality is what we make
>it.  However, I would also like to warn you about being too quick to
>disregard what you call a "dream" - a label attached to some of humankind's
>most impressive achievements at some point in their development.(p.s. "case
>and point" see: George Wallace 1963 for an excellent example of your
>mistake)  Personally, I see far more worth in working toward making that
>better solution a more clear reality.
>Finally, I had no "ulterior motive" (except, perhaps, in hindsight, to
>piss-off people like you and force you to look up "ulterior") but since you
>obviously have one in mind feel free to throw it out.
>In the future kindly direct E-mails of a condescending nature to my
>personal address.
>Thanks- Senator Allen.
>
>
>At 02:43 PM 11/16/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>Chris,
>>
>>I have a few questions...
>>
>>(1) The Free Press already hs a negative view of
>>UVM did you honestly believe that writing an editorial condemning their
>>actions would have "positive" outcomes and would be re-printed verbatim? I
>>certainly don't, it seems contrary to reason to be writing negatively to
>>an already hostile source!
>>
>>(2) Wouldn't you agree that your worries were misdirected?  The majority
>>of the readers of the Free Press, frankly, I think, won't feel an ounze of
>>sympathy for your remarks.  The majority of people in Burlington have a
>>negative view of UVM and its students.  The point is, your concerns should
>>be targetted at the director of the free press and not the citizens of
>>Burlington.
>>
>>Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fair reporting but that is just a dream -
>>not a reality.  People WANT to hear about everything that UVM is doing
>>wrong because that is what sells, case and point.  Troubling as it is,
>>that is the way things are.  It would be nice if all of humanity could be
>>at peace with one another - that just a'nt going to happen.
>>
>>What was the ulterior motive of your editorial?
>>
>>Chris Lowman
>>
>>
>>On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Chris Allen wrote:
>>
>>> Senators-
>>> In today's (Sunday) Free Press you may notice an editorial I wrote.  It
>>> appears on page 5-E.  There are a few things you should know when
>reading it.
>>> 1) I submitted it to the Free Press on 10/12/98 - at a time when it was
>>> relevant.
>>> 2) They materially altered its message by cutting off the end of it.
>>> The only reason I am bringing this to your attention at all is because
>>> under my name they note my SGA involvement.  Thus, there is the distinct
>>> possibility that some people may wrongfully associate it with the Senate
>>> body as a whole.  In the form they printed it that would not be an
>>> especially favorable outcome.
>>> Below I have included the full text.  A quick comparison will reveal that
>>> what they cut off was the most important, solution seeking, part of the
>>> entire piece.
>>>
>>> >       I would like to take a moment to condemn the flagrantly unbalanced
>>> reporting on the part of the Burlington Free Press in the wake of what
>>> police and city officials have come to so conveniently call a "riot".  The
>>> Free Press has printed article after article, not to mention countless
>>> opinions by uninformed citizens, citing the role UVM students played in
the
>>> disturbance.
>>> >       I find it deeply disturbing that so little attention has been
>paid to the
>>> well witnessed fact that the police on the scene that night, far from
being
>>> the saviors of downtown the Free Press has portrayed them to be, behaved
>>> inappropriately.  It is a fact that innocent people were pepper sprayed
and
>>> otherwise abused by the police.  I do not espouse the view that such
>>> behavior was justification for the crowd's actions but one must certainly
>>> realize that the police played a part in making the situation WORSE.
>>> >       Furthermore, stop attacking UVM students - undoubtedly the
economic
>>> lifeblood of Burlington.  Burlington, and especially the opinion page of
>>> the Free Press, is becoming a very hostile place for UVM students.  (AT
>>> THIS POINT THE FREE PRESS CUTS THE LETTER OFF)  Alienating the students is
>>> not a particularly effective way of fostering the open dialogue and mutual
>>> understanding necessary for positive change and progress.
>>> >       Perhaps the Free Press could work to balance its coverage of UVM
>student
>>> life with some stories about all the good things students bring to the
>>> city.  For example, UVM students regularly engage in volunteer and
>>> political activities all over the city.  We have a right to expect
balanced
>>> coverage and fair representation from the city's only major newspaper.
>>> >       -Chris Allen.
>>> >       Second year UVM student, Student Government Association Senator.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>