Pre-empting Clinton speech was shameful

I am very surprised that no articles or commentary in the Feb. 5 Collegian seemed to address the problem that occurred Tuesday night, courtesy of your associates in the media field.

Both the State of the Union Address and the O.J. Simpson verdict were covered, but a situation was overlooked.

While watching the "pre-game" of the State of the Union on one of the major television networks, it seemed that the network was preoccupied with the notion that they were covering history with simultaneous coverage of both the President's address and the Simpson verdict-to-be.

While such feeling is expected due to the possibility to cover both important events (live), what occurred at the end of Clinton's State of the Union Address was a disgrace to the political system on which this nation attempts to pride itself.

This network decided that the last few minutes of the president's speech were not worthy of the total attention of its viewers.

It decided to devote 70 percent of the TV screen to cover the liability verdict in Santa Monica.

The conclusion of every speech is what is most remembered. But the media deprived the most powerful man of the free world this right.

This is a nation whose majority rarely associates itself with politics more than once every four years.

This night in January (or February this year) is an opportunity to get the public back into the system and make them aware of the current "state of the union".

As Representative J.C. Watts said in the Republican response, Washington must "return power to your home."

President Clinton's political ideals may be easily debatable, as is expected in a multi-partisan society, but the man deserves respect.

He survived scandal, warranted and unwarranted alike, to become a two-term president, which is a rarity as of late.

He is our leader and should be respected as such.

The network hurt both President Clinton and our nation's agenda by not allowing the public to hear all that the speech had to say.

While our leader was discussing the mission of our nation, all of America's ears were deaf to him and eyes blind to him. Instead, our senses were focused on a man found liable in a court of law of malice, oppression and the lot, in the death of two humans.

Last night, a system of justice along with the help of the network caused a great injustice to the president. An opportunity was wasted.

Darren A. Skott
sophomore-finance

Alcohol Intervention Program will be helpful

As an intern with the Alcohol Intervention Program, I would like to thank you for the informative editorial (Feb. 4) about our program.

I appreciate your stressing that AIP is not a punishment, but rather an educational program focused on teaching those who choose to drink or not and make low-risk choices with regard to alcohol, while providing support for those who choose not to drink.

Another aspect of the AIP Level II that wasn't mentioned is self-referrals.

Students can enroll themselves in the program free of charge at any time if they feel they might have a problem and would like to talk about it, or would like additional information.

AIP can serve as an educational resource, or a stepping stone to more involved counseling,

Finally, the editorial suggested that students who drink excessively will not be helped by either AIP Level I or Level II.

On the contrary, AIP Level II is an intensive one-on-one setting that focuses on individual use.

An important component of AIP Level II is an intake assessment which explores the student's drinking behaviors.

If someone appears to be high-risk for alcohol abuse and would not benefit from just education, he or she is referred to the on-campus addictions specialist, who will focus more specifically on the student's individual needs.

Through this referral system, it is the hope that students who have a problem, or are at risk for developing a problem, will get the help they need and connect with someone who, if the student is interested, can provide further treatment or referral.

Again, thank you for your support of our program.

Robyn Sterba
Alcohol Intervention Program intern

Republicans should clarify their viewpoints

Every once in a while I read a column from Scott Paterno, or some other young Republican-type person, and I am sickly reminded of why I detest Rush Limbaugh so much.

During debates and so forth, Clinton would explain what he planned on doing, while most of Dole's comments were against Clinton.

Now whether I agree with, or even believe all the stuff Clinton was saying is another story, but at least he was saying something.

Every time I asked a Republican what they thought about Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and his little fund-raising problem, all I would get was, "What about Clinton this and what about Clinton that?"

I believe in the Bible it says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

I am sure that the amount of crooked politicians outnumbers the amount of honest ones by at least two or three to one, both Republican and Democrat.

I am a registered Democrat, and have been for many years. But I did not vote for Clinton because there were a few issues I just could not agree with him on.

But I couldn't vote for Dole because I didn't know what the guy wanted to do.

Thomas Cotton
senior-civil engineering