A number of things have struck me concerning the issue of the Collegian's coverage of USG funding of the College Republican trip to Washington, D.C.

First is the fact that readers are given the impression that the only people who voted for the funding are those who will benefit from it. Not so, as College Republican members were not alone in voting "aye" for the legislation. Also to be noted is the fact that not all of these senators may be able to attend CPAC, and a number of those that will attend will not be traveling with the College Republicans, thus not benefitting at all from the funding.

Second was the fact that all of Friday's "Letters to the Editor" sounded strangely similar. Was there not a single letter sent to the editor expressing an opposing opinion? Aside from the fact that the newspaper has a duty to represent the various sides of an issue, the letters that were printed were all incredibly similar (and, to be honest, it became rather dull hearing the same points reiterated over and over again).

Most outrageous, however, was the letter penned by Mike Carroll, who admonished the members of USG for spending money on themselves, when he himself has voted, as a member of ARHS (Association of Residence Hall Students) numerous times to spend hundreds of dollars on activities such as bowling parties -- reserved solely for the members of ARHS (whose membership is even less than those who will be attending the College Republican trip to Washington). I find that somewhat in contrast to his statement that "I don't vote in what benefits me personally, I vote in what benefits the students I represent."