I am writing in response to Robinson Duffy's editorial in the previous edition of the Sun Star. Duffy, the former Managing Editor of the Sun Star, makes a clear, concise, and reasonable argument as to why the Sun Star Funding Initiative would not achieve my desired results. As a result, I have decided to rescind the initiative.

I stand corrected in that the solution which I had proposed will not result in a better Sun Star; however, I am not backing down from my belief that the Sun Star fails to meet the nominal expectations of a student newspaper to which my student fees are paid. I fully support Duffy's suggestion to hold roundtable discussions between readers and staff of the Sun Star, to help the Sun Star staff gain a perspective of what students, the involuntary financial supporters of the Sun Star, desire to see (or not see) in the student newspaper.

I have heard several arguments that this initiative attacks free speech. Americans pay for the right to free speech, either through taxpayer dollars to support our military, or as Jeff Apple Benowitz pointed out, loss of loved ones. Benowitz correctly points out that we all pay for the right to free speech, something that we should all be very thankful for; however, we do not pay for free speech, that is, if I want to publish a conspiracy theory newsletter, I would do so at my own cost, but provided I don't break any laws in doing so, it would be protected by my right to free speech.

What I continue to hold issue with is that the Sun Star overlooks many issues that are relevant to students. The Sun Star devoted a half a page to discussing the sewage problems at the Chancellor's house; does anyone know what "CLMP" stands for?

In "UAF to spend big money on clocks," Nate Raymond purports, "In December, ASUAF passed a resolution demanding synchronized clocks. Chancellor Steve Jones said the resolution was the first he had heard about "hardships" associated with campus clocks." Such a statement is absolutely baseless. In fact, SR165018A, the resolution Raymond claims makes such demands says, "Resolved, That ASUAF supports the synchronizing of clocks on campus; and be it further / Resolved, That this resolution be delivered to the Office of the Chancellor, Facility Services, and the Master Planning Committee." I don't see the word "demand." Should students pay for a newspaper that purports unfounded facts?

From almost before I began my campaign to collect signatures, Casey Grove, Managing Editor, avidly opposed the initiative. Not that I expected Grove to embrace my initiative, but I did expect a more informed debate with Grove. In Grove's first editorial, Grove made unfounded claims regarding the initiative and write a paraphrased quote that would have required him to use telepathy to have acquired (since he didn't speak with me or see any flyers or the initiative at that point). When I responded to these baseless claims, Grove merely pointed out that I had spelled "intelligent" incorrectly.

Students are paying for a tabloid. Ironically, the Sun Star even looks like a tabloid newspaper, but more true: it reads like one. The stories are onesided and baseless, the paper lacks investigative journalism, and only those stories which are important to the Sun Star reporters are reported (I had asked why the Ice Bridge in front of the library didn't get even a little blurb, isn't it possible that if students are interested in sewage problems at the Chancellor's house they would also be interested in the ice bridge and what difficulties were encountered while constructing it?). Best of all, it seems that if your opinion is not liked by Grove, you get insulted in the editorial section. Grove's insults are of course not limited to me, but also everyone listed in the "Shit List" last fall.

Ironically, Grove continues to try to shift attention from the Sun Star to ASUAF. Of course I've been paying attention to ASUAF's spending, and I don't like spending even 7 percent of my student funds to read the purported news and be insulted. Grove suggests that ASUAF have a roundtable discussion outside of the regular Senate meetings. I rather enjoy the current system of just going to the Senate meetings. Furthermore, isn't this the same as saying, "The Federal Government has more tax impact on us than the State Government, therefore, we shouldn't bother paying attention to the State Government." Try telling that to anyone involved in the Full Funding Campaign.

Thanks again to Robinson Duffy. Not only did he provide a good counterargument, but he also provided a good countersolution, one which I hope to see implemented and actually taken seriously by Sun Star staff.