letters to the editor
Submit a Letter
sports & rec.
spring break deals
Work @ The Auburn Plainsman
« Itsmeclaireb wrote on Saturday, Oct 05 at 10:27 PM »
This is one of the most poorly written articles I've ever read. I hope to God you aren't a journalism major. Also, check your facts before you write an article--you don't know how much money is allocated to the UPC budget. If you think there's such a problem with the acts UPC brings to campus, why don't you try actually doing something about it besides writing a crappy article.
« pokapoka wrote on Thursday, Sep 26 at 07:22 AM »
Good morning and happy Thursday! This is absolutely appalling and unacceptable, and I am truly sorry you had to experience this! It is not how we want, or expect, members of the Auburn family to act and something must be done to curb the racism and stereotypes that still exist in today's society. This just reminds me there is still a lot of work to be done in this arena and we must keep trying to promote a community of acceptance, diversity, and understanding. When this happens we will see real change in the world. I hope you are able to peacefully enjoy the rest of the football season!!
« evh1 wrote on Monday, Sep 16 at 11:19 AM »
"Smokers’ concerns were taken into consideration and their opinions were considered." ...and immediately dismissed out of hand. Is it really Jacob Dean and the SGA's contention that the Auburn campus is so terribly small that there is not a single nook or corner anywhere that non-smoking students can avoid on their walks to and from class? I am not a smoker, but this is ridiculous. Even Disney World has smoking sections. Both smokers and non-smokers could have EASILY been accommodated in this decision. The SGA simply chose not to do so.
« Sanguine wrote on Thursday, Sep 12 at 07:08 AM »
A wizard discussing the collecting of knowledge on the campus with the "most conservative student body of any college in the nation..." I'm amazed he's still around. I may have to rethink my view of conservatives, at least the college aged types. There is hope! SOURCE: http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4950
« cmg0030 wrote on Wednesday, Sep 11 at 04:59 PM »
The figure -> 49,600 / 755,770 = 0.066 Was meant to be a ratio, not a percentage. This means its *not* literally a thousand times more likely to have gotten these diseases from another cause. However, it's still a very small portion regardless and it remains that you must trust their estimation and attribution methods to even use the 49,600 figure.
« cmg0030 wrote on Wednesday, Sep 11 at 04:35 PM »
I'm sure the polling done by the non-smoking SGA was completely fair and impartial. Getting a third party such as the Plainsman to do the polling wouldn't have worked at all would it? It doesn't matter whether or not this was done democratically. Implementing a complete ban on such a large campus is not only fascist and authoritarian, but it's just plain discrimination. >According to the CDC, secondhand smoke exposure causes an >estimated 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease >deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States. I wonder how many of these were people who, for most of their lives, lived with (indoors) and drove in a car with a loved one who smoked constantly. I wonder how many of them died from outdoor secondhand smoke from the passerby. I would be willing to be the former makes up 99.9% and the latter makes up 0.1%. It would be nice to give a reference for something like this if your going to use it to prove a point. The keyword here is 'estimated'. Anyone with half a brain knows that there is something not quite right with the above numbers. Don't take my word for it, get it from the CDC themselves: >The number of smoking-attributable deaths varies according >to trends in smoking prevalence and the number of deaths >from diseases caused by smoking. SAM estimates also change >when a causal relationship is established between smoking >and a disease not previously included in SAMMEC (1). >Although smoking prevalence has declined dramatically since >its peak in the 1960s, the number of smoking-attributable >deaths has remained relatively unchanged, primarily because >of increases in population size (particularly among older >age groups). Even with declines in the rates of various >smoking-related diseases (e.g., coronary heart disease), >the absolute number of deaths is increasing as the total >population increases. In 2009 158,081 died from lung cancer, 597,689 died from heart disease. This means of the people that died from these diseases, only about 3,600 of the lung cancer victims and about 46,000 heart disease victims could be 'attributed' to secondhand smoke. So we get: -> 49,600 / 755,770 = approx. 0.066% If you get lung cancer or heart disease and it kills you, it's literally more than a thousand times more likely it's because of something other than secondhand smoke. Your numbers are insanely large because we have an insanely large population and because a factor in their 'estimation' of the 'attributable' deaths is the huge number of deaths caused by smoking related diseases. These numbers are not due to the 'extremely horrible effects of second hand smoke'. Propaganda much, anyone? Well, I guess this is the Student *Government* Association we're talking about. Let's not forget that none of your numbers even apply to the issue at hand. These are not deaths 'attributed' to outdoor secondhand smoke in the open air. In fact, there has never been *any* evidence of harm from being subjected to only outdoor secondhand smoke (better known to most as air pollution). You will find many mentions of studies on outdoor secondhand smoke, but there are never any formal papers or numbers to back it up. "The evidence of a risk to people in open-air settings is flimsy," -- Ronald Bayer, Columbia University  : http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.htm#Editorial Note: : http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/ : http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/08/anti-smoking-ban-outdoors_n_3725411.html
« cmg0030 wrote on Wednesday, Sep 11 at 02:43 PM »
I came to the Plainsmen's website today for the first time looking for an article expressing exactly these sentiments. I was hoping that there would be a sane editorial on the subject and I was delighted by this piece. Dismissing the fact that such a policy, that *completely* bans outdoor smoking on the entirety of such a large campus is completely fascist, it is also just out right stupid. Without guaranteed, extreme draconian penalties, smokers are not going to quit smoking because of a few signs. You definitely see less people smoking, the policy has only made smokers more subtle about it than they used to be. The article above mentions that you still see ash cans around our campus, and this is true to some extent. Most of the ash trays on campus have been removed. The Haley Center no longer has any ash trays within its vicinity. Whoever is having them removed is really doing a disservice to the Auburn campus. All removing ash trays is going to do is make cigarette buts pile up everywhere. Next time your by Broun Hall, look how many cigarette butts are in the sod in the landscaped island beside the building. There are already about 3 times as many as there were last semester when there was an ashtray nearby. Walk around the Haley Center and see how many cigarette butts. It's simple, without ashtrays smokers will either throw their cigarette butts on the ground, or try to half way put it out before throwing it in a trash can, which of course is a fire hazard (caused by lack of ashtrays). I predict the smoking ban will last until the morons who implemented are overrode by those who realize how much harm they've done.
« DeangeloVickers wrote on Monday, Sep 09 at 03:53 PM »
You know what I do to avoid the "extremely horrible side-effects of secondhand smoke"? I take 5 extra seconds, readjust my path and proceed to walk around them. A more pressing concern is if Auburn will ever have SGA senators that legislate policy based on the needs of the entire student body instead of implementing discriminatory policies behind the veil of supposed student support. Maybe the SGA Senate President Pro Tempore should consider looking into this. Most Auburn students realize this policy is unenforceable silliness.
« laura_rad wrote on Tuesday, Aug 27 at 01:42 PM »
This looks like a funny book. Great idea.
« Boss_Youngblood wrote on Saturday, Jul 27 at 10:29 PM »
While much won't change on the state level for married same-sex couples, they actually will retain federal benefits regardless of the state they live in. For example, if a same-sex couple went to Massachusetts to get married and then returned to Alabama, one spouse would still be able to sponsor the other for a green card or citizenship, their children would now be able to claim both parents on the FAFSA, etc., despite Alabama's ban on marriage equality. It's just the state-specific benefits they would continue to be denied. We've got a long way to go, but I know that one day we'll look at the debate over same-sex marriage the same way we now view the debate over interracial marriage of the '60s.
next 1000 results
Software Copyright © 2013
. Content Copyright © 2013 The Auburn Plainsman. Business listing data provided in part by Localeze.
This software is in a public beta.
The Auburn Plainsman - A spirit that is not afraid is in Auburn, AL