Daily Campus

Originally posted by

John

wow, this is really sad,

way to go SMU!! on mounting a library to the worst president in the history of the United States.

I am ashamed to be a student of Southern Methodist University, so much that I am now looking to transer out.

thank you president Turner

You are a moron. I dont think he is a great president but having a presidential library is a great honor no matter who it is for. If people want to research the history (good or bad) of the last 8 years they will have to come to our campus. How is that a bad thing??

Originally posted by

John

wow, this is really sad,

way to go SMU!! on mounting a library to the worst president in the history of the United States.

I am ashamed to be a student of Southern Methodist University, so much that I am now looking to transer out.

thank you president Turner

No, he is not a moron. This move will severly tarnish SMU's ability to recruit nationally across a broad spectrum. This library will include a think tank for conservative education, or the most idealogic brand. SMU is not a conservative education, but it is about to be. This puts us on par with Liberty University. I find it ironic that Bush is announcing the site of his library only days after reports surfaced that he his administration is cutting off the national EPA library system. There is a reason the Perkins Theology School wrote a letter of protest asking the Board to turn down this library.

You won't be missed!

Fellow alums, students.....I sometimes get the feeling Baylor fans and UD fans are in this forum........I would not surprise me, it is open for all! I know some are real alums/students but misunderstanding why a presidential library can help any school. Let me put it this way, supporting SMU in getting the library is not a referendum on if you like Bush or not. Liking or hating Bush should not be the issue. The issue couldn't be further......Some may not like Bush nor his policies, some just love him, some like some policies and hate others..........That is not what is important now. Most universities would love to have a presidential library. The IVYs of the world may not care because they are on top already. They don't need help. Their endowments are over 12 billion a piece. But to the rest, it is a dream.... The benefits are enormous. All presidential Scholars and experts have repeatedly said it would be a great financial boost to any university amongst many other advantages. Of all the seven (or 11) presidential libraries now, no research has shown that the president's reputation has affected the university negatively. All experts never stop mentioning that advantages......So lets keep our expertise to what we studied at school or work and stop venturing into negatives which are unfounded by historical data nor experts(people who do this for a living!!). Most comments I believe are made out of love and concern for SMU> But the tone and spirit of the comments are sometimes unhealthy if you really are mustangs. I suggest we debate with facts rather than what we think would happen. Bring your data and sources to show precedence...................Some might say Bush's policies are not in line with what a school like SMU should support. Lets assume they are right.........That is not what the debate should be about. Everyone would judge that personally and so no one should try to impose their view on others. The discussion should be if the library would help SMU or hurt it. All experts from the library of congress say it is an assert to any school....they run the presidential libraries with the achieve.......whatever institute. Personal failures of presidents have not been proven in any research to hurt any presidential library nor university.
The library would make SMU a nationally and internationally know university. The financial gains would be enormous............The fund raising capabilities of SMU would be enhanced. The library would be a forum for research. No matter how you look at it, the benefits would out weigh the negatives. Stanford houses a presidential library of the only president in history to have a net lose of jobs by the end of his term. In a nut shell he killed the economy. First time it happened in more that 200years.Guess what? No one cares about that nor the conservative think tank there. Stanford is still a top five university. Their applications go up every year!!! No one really cares about the think tank there trying to polish Herbert Hoover reputation. Hoover has been consistent very poorly ranked amongst the most loved American presidents. Who would say they would have declined Stanford (top five universities)?? Lets keep our mustang pride and think more of the benefits to our institution that our personal analysis of possible impacts. All experts say the windfall benefits are enormous. They do this for a living........Our emotion thoughts of negatives are unfounded and not supported by history........compared to what other universities housing Presidential libraries have experienced. GO MUSTANGS!!!

Originally posted by

John

wow, this is really sad,

way to go SMU!! on mounting a library to the worst president in the history of the United States.

I am ashamed to be a student of Southern Methodist University, so much that I am now looking to transer out.

thank you president Turner

Right on! What a joke! Bush? Library? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Who would want any association with the stupidest president in history?

Originally posted by

John

wow, this is really sad,

way to go SMU!! on mounting a library to the worst president in the history of the United States.

I am ashamed to be a student of Southern Methodist University, so much that I am now looking to transer out.

thank you president Turner

SMU is my alma mater. Bush's library and propaganda machine does not belong at SMU. How much will it cost SMU? Why doesn't SMU get paid for the library? Does SMU have other "think-tanks" already?

Originally posted by

Anthony P. James

way to go ignorant rednecks!!! you finally brought your good ol boy back to your ranch!!

Ignorant rednecks?" Wow, that is a mature and educated thing to say. Did you attend SMU? I hope not because I will find it personally insulting to think that a person who could say something like that was accepted by such an exceptional institution. And to think that people like you criticize President Bush for not listening to other people's opinions... You may not agree with GWB's policies or his supporters but you should be ashamed for making such an "ignorant" comment.



Oh, and to the people who compare this library to the Nixon library proposed to Duke,

President Bush has not been impeached, and there is not a trial or even prosecution being brought against him to suggest such a thing. Do you not think that every presidential library has been opposed by people who did not support that particular president? Of course it has. Get over it, suck it up, and open your eyes and realize the great opportunity that is being offered to SMU, all of its students: past, present and future, and to all the members of the Dallas community who will benefit from the Library.

Originally posted by

kris norvet

Dear President Turner,

As a former student, I find it disappointing that the University has not considered the impact this presidential library may have on recruiting - this move may very well do more to re-inforce the homogonization of the student body than any other move in recent history.

As a former participant in SMU's study-abroad program, I find it unfortunate that the University is so eager to endorse a president who prefers self-righteousness over international diplomacy.

As a former Daily Campus EIC (who saw this coming many moons ago), I find it disappointing that our school legacy will forever be tainted by our association with this president.

As a former Presidential Scholar, I hope YOU find it unfortunate that I can no longer, in good conscience, support the University, or any of its scholarship programs, financially or otherwise.

Thank you, and good luck.
Kristen Norvet

I echo your comments, Kristen. I am saddened that my alma mater will be associated with this administration, its curtailing of civil and constitutional rights, its horrendous foreign policy, its aggregious support of war profiteering, and brazen contempt for progress and critical thinking. SMU should be against all of these principles.

Originally posted by

Mark

Six years ago President George W. Bush was one of the most popular Presidents in the history of the United States. No other President has had to endure an attack on our Country such as 911 and hopefully no other will.

I might not agree with every decision Mr. Bush has ever made, but that's ok. The American people elected this President because we trusted him to make the right decisions and if you look at the polls he certainly did exactly that.

I am proud that the Bush Library will be placed in the SMU campus. Whether you like Bush or not has no bearing in it. A library is a place to learn, a place to teach and a place to think. I don't have to like or dislike the President to do those things.

Mark, first of all, the "polls" do not show that he has made the rights decisions at all. You are correct that a library is a place to learn and think, unfortunately, that is not what his administration has encouraged for the past six years. They have supported removing evolution from public schools. They have began closing down the EPA library system. They have called everyone who does not agree with them as unpatriotic or stupid. They have undermined public education through No Child Left Behind. How does the science department of SMU feel about this, since Bush has denied that global warming is an issue and wants evolution taken out of public schools? SMU should be supportive of critical thinking and broad points of view. This administration has done everything they can to diminish that. It is more than simply disagreeing with the president. People can agree to disagree. The president's policies have demeaned and silenced those who disagree. The results of his decisions that "polls" do NOT support include thousands of deaths, the turning-back-the-clock on education, and encouraging environmental damage. No, "polls" do not agree with this.

Baloney. MANY presidents have endured difficult moments of human tragedy. I suppose that SMU hasn't taught you about any of them? Just because you we're alive at those moments doesn't decrease their importance. I suppose the University of Southern Methodists doesn't teach you that our unio has been through greater perils. That would sully your futures at Lockheed-Martin, wouldn't it?

I don't understand your comments at all.

Last time I checked, SMU is a known conservative institution located in a convervative city in a conservative state, which just so happens to be in the conservative part of the country. If you are indeed an alumn and have such misgivings about the predominant political ideology at SMU, you would have done well to consider another alternative.

Do you suggest that we should hold out for the next offer to locate a presidential library on our premises on account of your personal agenda, considering that liberal presidents will be unlikely to line up at our dear institution? Good luck with that.

You have to be extremely short-sighted to not see the overwhelming benefits from a presidential library, regardless of your personal opinion of the performance of the namesake. I don't always agree with the current administration, but to walk away from the opportunity of a lifetime for SMU does not seem like a prudent move to me

Way to go......Thanks for the truth! If we sit and wait to host what some in this forum are terming "successful presidents" libraries, we would wait forever. The success or failures of a president does not dent the prestige or benefits from hosting a presidential library. Let's stop dreaming........A popular and successful president would not choose SMU unless he is an Alumna!!!! Popular presidents would have the top 20 universities in the country at their door steps.........SMU's bid would not even make the first round. So, this is an opportunity of a life time for SMU. Considering how young SMU is, it doesn't get any better than this!

Dear "Annoyed,"
See Mike C. Miller's comment below for an explanation of why SMU is not a conservative education in the mold of Bush's conservative liking, he states it better than I. Conservative education=authoritative thought. That is not what SMU is about. It is not about whether you vote for the R instead of the D. (BTW, in Dallas, your conservative bastion, D's won every city election this year). Simply because there are more conservatives than liberals who attend SMU does not mean that SMU offers a conservative education. And it is irrelevant whether or not Dallas or Texas itself is conservative. The issue is THIS CAMPUS and the EDUCATION it offers, not the political ilk of the majority of its students. Liberty U is a conservative educational institution. BYU, Baylor, numerous others. The education at SMU is not, and should not, be along those lines. The think tank is what makes this library a problem for many people.

Oh, and one more thing, "Annoyed." You suggest I would have done well to consider a different university because of my political leanings? Are you suggesting that SMU is only for conservatives? This is off the topic of this message board, but are you also suggesting that if I am not conservative that I am not allowed to voice my own opinion about this? That I can attend SMU if I just shut up about anything political? That is ridiculous. You and your conservative friends were served quite well by the non-conservative education you received at SMU, if you indeed are an alum, and I would also think you would not want the educational mission of the university to change. And I too have been served well with the SMU education, despite any suggestion by an "annoyed" conservative that a non-conservative attended SMU.

Originally posted by

Michael Correll

Congratulations SMU! While I may dramatically disagree with some of the policy choices of President Bush, I defintely believe the presence of a presidential library on our beautiful campus will only serve to afford our students amazing opportunities for even greater scholarship.

I consider it a genuine shame that so many cannot see past their own political beliefs to recognize the value of this opportunity. As a Presidential Scholar alum, I am truly sadened that anyone who benefited so much from the largesse of SMU would so easily turn their back on such an excellent university. Then again, if this turn of events is all that it takes to abandon your alma matter then such abandonment was likely inevitable.

Thank you President Turner and the university community for again moving SMU forward as a national institution.

Michael Correll
Class of '06

Ask Duke alums if they were wrong or regret protesting the Richard Nixon library on their campus. The point is that this will not move SMU forward as a national institution, it will do the opposite. SMU will not see the breadth of student backgrounds as a result of this decision.

Originally posted by

Michael Correll

Congratulations SMU! While I may dramatically disagree with some of the policy choices of President Bush, I defintely believe the presence of a presidential library on our beautiful campus will only serve to afford our students amazing opportunities for even greater scholarship.

I consider it a genuine shame that so many cannot see past their own political beliefs to recognize the value of this opportunity. As a Presidential Scholar alum, I am truly sadened that anyone who benefited so much from the largesse of SMU would so easily turn their back on such an excellent university. Then again, if this turn of events is all that it takes to abandon your alma matter then such abandonment was likely inevitable.

Thank you President Turner and the university community for again moving SMU forward as a national institution.

Michael Correll
Class of '06

I'm sorry, have we met? I wasn't aware we had discussed my political beliefs.

If you'll notice, I didn't mention politics or political parties. I instead tried to focus on the impact such a decision could have on the University, both in recruiting and in international reputation. Now, if you can provide evidence that Bush is well regarded abroad, I'd be happy to listen.

Whether you like it or not, SMU is a business, and in this age of increasing globalization, this just is not a good business move.

And, I'd like to add, it's rather naive to assume that SMU provides the Presidential Scholarship purely out of altruism - they, and all other universities, offer scholarships in the hopes that prestige and/or money will come their way down the line. It is a mutually beneficial relationship, and if the University makes decisions that alienate past (and future) students, then they deal with the consequences. I feel the University let me down, and not vice versa.

- Kristen Norvet

Originally posted by

Rick Dunlop

All of these blasts on GWB himself are out of line. The Presidential Library will house many important documents from the Bush Administration that are invaluable to this country's history. When it comes to sites to research 9/11 or the Iraq War, there may not be a better location in the world after the completion of this library. Forget political ties, the Bush Library will advance the University academically in a way that almost nothing else could. What else would draw world-renowned professors and scholars to the campus?

These are not just blasts at political leanings. The Perkins Theology Department sent a letter to the Board a fews days ago asking them not to pursue this library. Just imagine what the science department thinks of this. Combined with the ultra conservative think tank that will come with this library, and you will have many more professors driven away from SMU than are drawn to it. That is the problem. Regardless of your political leanings, this will cause serious problems with existing professors, as well as with recruiting professors in the future.

Originally posted by

Mary

Hopefully these comments are not from alum or students of SMU. I would hate to think people that small minded and ignorant to what a presidential library is really about would have graduated from this fine university. It should be an honor to have this on the campus, whether you are a democrat, liberal or comservative.

So, I assume you believe the department heads at the Perkins Theology School are small minded and ignorant, seeing as how they have formally protested this decision?

Originally posted by

Stan King

The hate against our president is childish, and applying it to SMU's desire to host a presidential library is petty and short-sighted.

More to the point, to quote Stan from South Park: "America may have some problems, but it's our home, our team. And if you don't wanna root for your team, then you should get the hell out of the stadium."

I'd like to point out that rooting for the team DOES NOT mean rooting for the president. It means rooting for the Constitution and the ideals our nation was built on - most of which ahs been disregarded by the GWBush administration.

Originally posted by

Katy Rowe

There are a few things I'd like to address:

The comments are not personal attacks against George W. Bush, but potential consequences of what the library, if it comes with a conservative think tank like the president has expressed that he wants (there's the difference between the Bush Sr. and LBJ libraries-- expression of WANTING a think tank included). Bush's policies have, like others have claimed, ignored and denied global warming (which nearly all scientists have said is happening, and if you doubt it then you are seriously underinformed and should do some research-- there is currently not enough snow on the Alps to open the ski resorts. Bears in Moscow aren't hibernating and think it's spring. The polar ice caps are melting.), and allowing evolution not to be taught in schools (as an anthropologist, and an educated person, this is riduculous). His foreign policy is more about alienating other nations than about building good relationships with them. It is a policy of pre-emptive strikes and stubbornness. While it is important that we "finish the job" in Iraq, as the president insists, it was also highly important to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has now taken over half of the country again and is murdering teachers simply because they teach. The Bush Administration's policies include subverting human rights, suspending parts of the Constitution, helping the rich instead of the poor, hurting the poor by making it harder to get assistance and to declare bankruptcy, hurting the elderly by making it hard for them to live, and hurting students by making it harder for them to attend college (I used to get the Pell Grant and the moment Bush cut it, Perry also cut the Texas Grant, which I was also receiving, which has caused me to be about $10,000 more a year for the past three years in debt to attend SMU).

At a time when SMU has just created a Sustainablity major, a Human Rights minor and hopefully a Human Rights major, but I haven't heard if that was approved yet, adding a library with a think tank that will provide information alternate to these ideals is wrong. I stand with the professors and alumni and students who know this will hurt SMU if it comes with a conservative think tank. SMU is already seen as a conservative campus. I've been laughed at for sitting behind a table with a sign that read "Stop genocide in Darfur." If the library comes with a conservative think tank, it will only alienate more students and more professors, and the campus will truly become void of non-conservative views. It takes a lot of courage to stand up on a campus that is mostly conservative and express opposite views.

Yes, opposing views are good, and I'm glad for the opposition, but views that promote lies (global warming not real, creationism is science, evolution is false) are not good for the University.

Just so I understand correctly. Opposing views are good....as long as they agree with your beliefs.

Originally posted by

Matt

Quoted from Katy Rowe:

"Bush's policies have, like others have claimed, ignored and denied global warming (which nearly all scientists have said is happening, and if you doubt it then you are seriously underinformed and should do some research-- there is currently not enough snow on the Alps to open the ski resorts. Bears in Moscow aren't hibernating and think it's spring. The polar ice caps are melting.)"

Yeah, well.

Tell the folks in Colorado that Global Warming is happening. They just received 33" of snow in Boulder, and 52" in Glen Haven. Earlier this week, record low temperatures were recorded throughout Southern California.

Truth is, no scientist can tell you that global warming is happening without using the qualifiers: kinda, maybe, if, sort of.

And after that is proven, scientists still have to prove that HUMANS are actually responsible for the warming increase.

My point is that we can't just take things at face value. You have to discuss, debate, and learn together. And the library does that.

The problem that many of us have about this library and this think tank is that they are not about openness and debate. The conservative education that Mr. Bush hopes to promote are not about critical thinking and openness, instead it is about authoritative thinking. This impromptu global warming debate has not been had within his administration, only outside it in the scientific community. Because under Mr. Bush's educational philosophy, there is no debate, there is only right and wrong (he is right, everyone else, even if it is 95% of the scientific community, is wrong). If this library indeed goes up, I will worry that its philosphies will spread to the university. After all Laura Bush is a Board member, and may have a position in the think tank. I hope SMU will stay true to its mission of a quality balanced education, but this influence will not help. And I agree with the posters who have concerns about the effect on recruiting, not for the positive, but for the negative.

Originally posted by

Matt

Quoted from Katy Rowe:

"Bush's policies have, like others have claimed, ignored and denied global warming (which nearly all scientists have said is happening, and if you doubt it then you are seriously underinformed and should do some research-- there is currently not enough snow on the Alps to open the ski resorts. Bears in Moscow aren't hibernating and think it's spring. The polar ice caps are melting.)"

Yeah, well.

Tell the folks in Colorado that Global Warming is happening. They just received 33" of snow in Boulder, and 52" in Glen Haven. Earlier this week, record low temperatures were recorded throughout Southern California.

Truth is, no scientist can tell you that global warming is happening without using the qualifiers: kinda, maybe, if, sort of.

And after that is proven, scientists still have to prove that HUMANS are actually responsible for the warming increase.

My point is that we can't just take things at face value. You have to discuss, debate, and learn together. And the library does that.

Matt,


You don't seem to be taking your prescription of "discuss, debate, and learn together" to heart when it comes to global warming. Yes, it makes sense that 'global warming' means 'earth is warmer.' However, this is not always the case. The rise in temperatures alters ocean currents. It alters wind patters. And then that causes an alteration in weather patterns. It's warm where it shouldn't be (there's a NYT story today about a colony of wild Argentinian parrots that are living in Brooklyn) and when it shouldn't be in some places, yes. But the weather pattern change due to global warming more importantly causes EXTREME weather situations-- like giant hurricanes that destroy cities and getting a snowstorm that drops 33' on one city and 52' on another. WFAA (Dallas' ABC affiliate) has already stated that 2006 is the warmest year on record for North Texas (and yet it was pretty cold a couple weeks back). I can even recognize the weather changes-- when I was in elementary school we'd get the first freeze around early-mid October and the weather wouldn't warm back up to the 70's until April after winter had started. This is in Dallas. While it was cold on Halloween this year, it didn't actually freeze until after Thanksgiving. It was cold for that week and finals week, and then warmed back up and we had temperatures in the 70's and 80's until right about Christmas. This past April we had several days of over 100 degree heat.


If you read scientific journals and if you actually discuss the issue of global warming instead of denying it purely because Democrats like Al Gore promote that something needs to be done about it, you'll see that humans are contributing to the problem. When I was younger I heard a lot about the ozone layer hole. Because of the hole, many nations signed the Montreal Protocol and banned the emission and use of chloroflurocarbons (CFCs). In the late 90's, the hole closed back up. Since then however, the hole has reopened over Antarctica and is even greater in size than before? What happened between it closing and reopening? Nations like Russia and the US and India backed out of the Montreal Protocol. Developing nations were allowed to use CFCs. There are certain emissions of chemicals that cause greenhouse gasses to pile up in the atmosphere, traping the sunlight and warming the earth. These are things that are caused by burning fossil fuels like oil, natural gas, and coal. One of them is carbon dioxide. I know you're going to say that carbon dioxide has always been emitted, and yes. But deforestation has caused an increasing burden on trees. There is far more carbon dioxide being emitted daily than there are trees in the world that can convert it to oxygen right now. And since there's not enough snow for skiing on the Alps this winter, that means a huge part of Europe is going to suffer from the lack of runoff water when the snow that should be there would melt in the spring, destroying yet another part of the ecosystem.

Another problem is methane gas. This one I don't believe is attributable to human causes. Methane gas is released typically from cows, but there are also huge entrapments of methane gas underneath many of the glaciers and ice caps that are now disappearing due to the rise in temperatures. However, it was human use of other greenhouse gasses that caused the rise in temperature that then caused these glaciers and ice caps to melt and release another greenhouse gas that just furthers the problem.

There aren't any scientists that say that global warming isn't happening, and the consensus among scientific communities is that humans have caused it. It's very easy to understand that humans caused global warming to occur on the scale that it has started occuring:
1. Greenhouse gasses get trapped in the atmosphere and then trap sunlight that would have left. This warms the temperatures on the earth.
2. Greenhouse gasses are things like carbon dioxide. This is released into the atmosphere on a large scale by burning fossil fuels like oil, natural gas, and coal.
3. Are these fossil fuels burning naturally? Sometimes. But the largest source of burning fossil fuels comes from humans.
4. Because humans are the largest source of burning fossil fuels, which become greenhouse gasses, which trap the sunlight that would have left the earth but now warms it instead, it is logically sound to say that humans have caused global warming.

Ms. Rowe,

While I find your arguments both well stated and plausible, I am skeptical.

I will preface this comment so that my meaning is most understood by stating that I am not biased against Democrats like Al Gore and the like. Rather, I am skeptical individuals who speak on information which they have no direct knowledge. Politicians and journalists writing on a global warming crisis falls under this bias.

It makes natural sense to talk to a Meteorologist when talking about climate and weather. Not legislators, not the UN, not Presidents, not environmentalists, not the sierra club. Ph.D. educated meteorologists. The REAL scientists.

The so-called "scientific consensus" is not black and white as many would have the public believe. Do a google search for "Global Warming Meteorologists" and don't be suprised by what you find.

Some findings:

Dr. William Grey, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University: "I think if you go to ask the last four or five directors of the national hurricane center – we all don't think this is human-induced global warming... Now there's a few modelers around who know something about storms, but they would like to have the possibility open that global warming will make for more and intense storms because there's a lot of money to be made on this. You know, when governments step in and are saying this – particularly when the Clinton administration was in – and our Vice President Gore was involved with things there, they were pushing this a lot. You know, most of meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded."

"I am convinced myself that in 15 or 20 years, we're going to look back on this and see how grossly exaggerated it all was. The humans are not that powerful. These greenhouse gases, although they are building up, they cannot cause the type of warming these models say – two to five degrees centigrade with a doubling of the greenhouse gases."

Or howabout this petition, reproduced online at http://www.oism.org/pproject/, which includes signatures over 2600 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and evironmental scientists. All signed a petition which urges the United States not to adopt agreements to ration the use of certain energy and technologies that depend on oil and oil products, key contributors to CO2 increases. Their reasoning: the science behind the policies is flawed.

2,600 scientists not enough? Here's the petition started 2 years earlier, with over 17,000 signatures of scientists. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm



Like I said earlier. Yes, it's about discussion and debate. And I truly mean those things. I'm not some biased Oil baron. So instead of dismissing my ideas because they are less popular, howabout listening to what the scientists actually have to say.

Dr. Richard Lindzen: "With respect to science, the assumption behind the consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign."

Originally posted by

Mike C. Miller

I think that those who are supporting this decision in the comments here are missing a crucial distinction -- between the library and the "think tank." To me, having a Presidential Library (even if it is for a failed and deeply flawed President) is fine. But to have a think tank that is linked ideologically to the same President is deeply offensive, for reasons that I will outline below.

First, it is Bush's ideology that has caused his catastrophic failures in the realm of foreign policy. Erecting a home for scholars to further propagate this ideology is like having a portion of the engineering school dedicated to designing better buggy whips.

Second, SMU is (or at least was when I attended in the late seventies and early eighties) a liberal arts college. I can think of no President in history who has run is administration in a manner more antithetical to the central messages of liberal arts than Bush. He is autocratic. He is intolerant. He is ham fisted. He does not respect the rights of others. He is not open minded. He does not engage in self doubt or introspection of any kind. I could go on and on till the cows come home. A library, I can live with. A "think tank" to glorify his ideology and preach the anti liberal arts message, never.

Finally, SMU is a Christian university. And while Bush professes to be just that, it is high time that the U.S. has a debate about the role of religion in politics and that the church have a debate on what it is to be a Christian in practice when one holds office. Frankly, I think that Bush is on the wrong side of history on both debates. Using Christianity as a tool to exclude others and propagate hatred, as Bush and Rove did so well, is wrong headed and I think that there is no institution better placed to say so than a university that is affiliated with what is supposed to be a liberal denomination.

Likewise, Bush as certainly not used the Christianity I was taught in the First Methodist Church in Marshall, Texas to guide his policies. Even without mentioning his taxation policies that redistributed huge quantities of wealth from poor Americans to the richest among us, his foreign policy and human rights record is atrocious. What would Jesus do about Guantanamo? About legalized torture? About a preemptive and unjust war based on crooked intelligence? About not allowing detainees the right to judicial review of their confinement? Again, I could go on. But does a university affiliated with a liberal denomination need a think tank that will spend millions of dollars propagating this ideology or retroactively justifying this conduct?

No, this university is not the place for such a "think tank." Not only does the university risk alienating a very substantial number of alumni, but it can also ruin it's reputation in the academic community generally. And the debate, President Turner, that is just now occurring should have been had in the university community long before now, and in an open and organized fashion.

I couldn't have said it better, sir. The think tank is the greatest problem. I have softened somewhat to the idea of ONLY the library, only because it is a presidential privilege to have one, as long as it is done in an honest way, and I don't want to "silence debate," even though I would certainly rather it not be at SMU. The think tank, however, definitely not.

Originally posted by

James Doster

The BUSH library will be great, all the negative post I understand are from "students" who have yet to go experience the real world and "pay" taxes for all the free social programs they endorse... Because of GWB we have a terrific economy that is generating tremendous tax revenues to in fact "fund" all types of social programs.. Not to mention everyone being able to work and care for their families..

it is easy to blast GWB when you are going to school on a free scholarship or mommy and daddy are footing the bill. Your world view will more than likely adapt once you get out there and do something besides drink, do drugs, sleep and slam national leaders in your spare time.

Pardon me, but you have no idea who these posters are. It is beyond presumptive of you to assume that those who have posted on this board are drunk, drug addicted, sleep all day students mooching off of your money and slamming politicians that you like. I for one am not in that category at all, but why don't you tell us how much you have contributed to society?

First you discuss the great economy. This is certainly a matter of perspective. If you are wealthy, get tax breaks, and have lots of investments, yes, the economy is great. Most people are not in that category. Inflation is up, real wages are down, worker benefits are down (see: Wal-Mart), and debt is up. Yes, the unemployment rate is down, but there are still massive numbers of workers without benefits who have seen declines in real wages. So your boy GWB has kept true to his form helping the wealthy and not the rest of the country.

The perspectve of those other than your own can change either way based on life experience, and students who become "productive" members of society are just as likely to see the problems with GWB and his policies as the other way around. What exactly do you want, to eliminate social programs? Should we revert to pre-FDR policy? Those Hoover policies worked out so well after all. Perhaps you are right, we should spend ALL of our vast resources, not on helping to develop and assist our own citizens, but to fund wasteful and unjust wars, because that is the best use of taxpayer money, right? Or is that a thought only a drunk spoiled brat could think of?

Originally posted by

James Doster

The BUSH library will be great, all the negative post I understand are from "students" who have yet to go experience the real world and "pay" taxes for all the free social programs they endorse... Because of GWB we have a terrific economy that is generating tremendous tax revenues to in fact "fund" all types of social programs.. Not to mention everyone being able to work and care for their families..

it is easy to blast GWB when you are going to school on a free scholarship or mommy and daddy are footing the bill. Your world view will more than likely adapt once you get out there and do something besides drink, do drugs, sleep and slam national leaders in your spare time.

Despite your characterization of me, I'm a working student who has $75,000 in student loans to pay back. I've seen my interest rates on loans climb steadily every year. I used to receive both the Pell Grant and the Texas Grant, until President Bush slashed funding to the Pell Grant at the same time Governor Perry ended the Texas Grant.

And since I'm a working student (I've worked two jobs most of the past three years, and three jobs during spring 2006-- all while being a full time student) I DO pay taxes. President Bush has made the economy great for those who don't have a difficult time living off of their ridiculously high salaries, while my parents and I have had to pick up extra jobs to be able to get by.

I'll be incredibly happy when the Democrats pass the bill to cut student loan interest rates in half. I'm going to be owing the government a lot of money for awhile.

And what social programs are it that I'm sucking up? Even if I was a snotty little rich kid who was getting a free education and drinking and doing drugs on daddy's dime I doubt many of the social programs that the government funds would be benefiting me. Public school? No, SMU is private. Welfare? No, I'd be a rich kid with rich parents. Your post makes no sense.

I've worked minimum wage jobs, and one of mine still pays me a minimum wage. I've seen people trying to survive on one and even two minimum wage jobs and having to live with four or five other coworkers in order to pay rent. I've volunteered with the International Refugee Center, Habitat for Humanity, tutoring children from low-income families, after school programs for children of low income families, and soup kitchens for the homeless, among many other programs. I've helped Katrina evacuees who lost nearly everything they had, who lost family members, who didn't know if their family members had survived or not. If this is the "real world" you're talking about, I've experienced it, but I doubt it is since you're touting Bush's "great economy" and the "good" his tax cuts have done.