Education should be available for everyone

For all those who collected in front of the state legislature and banks on April 3, we collected under a common idea, that education is a right to be enjoyed by all, not simply those who can afford it.

Demanding education is in no way to be considered greedy.  However, the bankers who are responsible for this economic crisis, and who now line their pockets with large bonuses, are the real greedy ones.

The North Carolina Constitution explicitly states that higher education is to “be extended to the people of the State free of expense.”  Whatever happened to this ideal that it is our mission to educate the people?

The idea that those who caused this crisis will bring us out of it if we give them enough money is a bankrupt idea.  The people of the United States have taken on a 10 trillion dollar bank bailout while we continue to build upon our student debts and have our Universities budgets stripped.

If only 15 percent of the bailout money was used towards education, we could modernize schools, reduce class sizes and make tuition free for three years nationwide. Investing in education and jobs directly is the best way to ensure recovery, not a broken trickle-down plan.  Reagan’s trickle down plans from the 1980’s only further concentrated wealth and did not create the amount of jobs needed for full recovery.  We need to learn from history and not repeat this folly yet again.

Instead, I choose to stand up and refuse to pay for this crisis caused by the bankers and bosses. I encourage everyone to stand up today as we Rally at 2 PM at Holladay Hall against our education being watered down. The number of tenured professors and support staff has been decreasing for years while the number of unneeded high paying administrative positions continue to increase. I propose we chop from the top and demand a quality education.

Ryan Thomson

junior, international political science

Sometimes an elephant is just an elephant

Earlier today, I watched a video about an elephant that paints. I had to wonder whether this meant anything or not. After all, when a pachyderm paints, do you really expect it to look like anything? And, if it does, what are you to think?

Some viewers and animal keepers interviewed in the video likened the animal’s artistic musings to postmodernism or even something approximating Picasso’s cubism. But is this fair to all of the aspiring Bob Ross’s tuning into public television stations each week to learn how to properly articulate an icy mountaintop, a smoking chimney or the elegant branches of an oak with the tips of their hobby store brushes and acrylic paints?

Because, we have to ask, did the lumbering beast intend his picture to appear as it did, as something else entirely, or as nothing at all? Is the intention behind a work of art not what makes it so? In this sense, it is difficult to judge whether or not the elephant is a skilled or hapless artist, or, really, an artist at all. All I really know for sure is that mankind will continue its attempts indefinitely to extract meaning from objects and events when no meaning is present and, of course, that a painting by artist Wannalee will be arriving at my home in seven to 10 business days.

But what I desperately want to know whether or not this sublime creature is a cool animal?

Robert Morrison

aerospace engineering

Mr. and Mrs. Wuf should not change

The column published April 14 regarding N.C. State’s mascots was rather disturbing to me. While I applaud you for an excellent use of phrase “the wild card” in what I believe to be you paying homage to the popular show, “It’s Always Sunny in Phillidelphia,” there were many things about this column that really bothered me. To start, why was such an article even considered in the Technician’s Viewpoint section? You commented that our mascots make our University appear to be ridiculous but the poor research and lack of logical arguments in your column are more ridiculous and frankly absurd and cause others to look poorly upon our University and Student Media as a whole.

Now, on to your arguments.  The present Mr. and Mrs. Wuf figures that we have as our mascots do not look like Muppets. They look like many other common mascots. You mention that they should be wild, free, and should “get rid of the clothing.” Most University mascots these days wear clothing or have another means to recognize their schools. For example, our rival UNC’s mascot, Ramses, always has a Tar Heels jersey on. It’s the same with Mr. and Mrs. Wuf.

I would also like to comment that a “blood thirsty, sharp-toothed killing machine” is not necessarily a positive thing in a mascot. Yes, while it looks fierce and I agree, it may even be kind of cool, our sporting events are family environments. We don’t want a mascot that will scare away little children. That would decrease our fan base and parents and alumni might stop coming to our events if their children have nightmares about Tuffy trying to kill them. Revenue would decrease from a simple economic standpoint. That is not something our University can afford at this time.

Mr. Omar, I would lastly like to draw attention to the fact that our mascots here at NCSU are our history. You, writing for a newspaper, should value history and traditions — after all, isn’t that what you are documenting? Mr. and Mrs. Wuf have been around significantly longer than you and have made a name for themselves on this campus. You have also — just as a bad columnist.

Richard Pridgen

junior, chemical engineering and pulp and paper science