PonyFans.com

Interesting read about our "ethically filthy" university. "SMU's Shame" by Gym Shoots on page 11 of the Dallas Observer, March 16-22, 2006. Quite a laugher.

Every time I start to think Schutze is a good journalist he writes an article like this. That article is not fit for the Daily Campus, much less a real newspaper. No wonder he still works for the Observer.

is The Observer available to read online?

The Observer dimwit is assuming the lawsuit by the other dimwit is true. And what exactly does the first dimwit have against SMU? It's clear the other one doesn't want to move and doesn't want to give up being landlord to the few tenants he has convinced to remain in the Gardens. If it isn't the same ole sing song about the death penalty, there's always some other lame excuse to give SMU bad PR.

Well, reading the article makes one think about how nice it is that someone actually gives that much of a sh*t about what SMU does or doesn't do.

Most priceless was the claim that in 1999, before the election, strategists were planning how to land the Bush library at SMU. Since everyone must have such foresight, I guess I need to start planning the tollway they're going to name after me that goes from McAllen to So. Padre Island.

that's probably a good idea, you don't want it to sneak up you and not be prepared. Hell, even if they were planning it, more power to them for being optimistic and hoping for the best.

Now you know why I'm buying up properties like crazy along Mockingbird Lane between Hillcrest and the Dallas North Tollroad. When they finally widen that mother, I'm gonna make a killing!

Diamond Girl wrote:The Observer dimwit is assuming the lawsuit by the other dimwit is true.

Exactly what is it about quoting from a depositin that constitutes an assumption? We all know SMU ran those old people out of there, no need to bury your head in the sand aobut it.

The deposition quoted from is from the earlier lawsuit between SMU and the condo owners.

Does anybody really argue with any of the following:
[list=]University Gardens was going downhill since at least the early 90's;
There have always been SMU students there;
SMU would have wanted the space regardless of the Bush Library;
SMU encouraged people to move out;
SMU paid fair market value or more for forty year old condos.[/list]

Let's not have a polianna attitude about this. SMU isn't exactly being altruistic. SMU has been playing hardball and SMU probably knew what would happen when they started leasing more and more units as opposed to having them held by owner-occupants, though I would like to know how many were owner-occupied in the '90s. That being said, the writer suggested that SMU indirectly killed old people, which is just nuts. Anybody that owned a unit got fair market value.

Time for you eloquent writers to write into the Editorial for the Observer this week.

SMU Football Blog wrote:Let's not have a polianna attitude about this. SMU isn't exactly being altruistic. SMU has been playing hardball and SMU probably knew what would happen when they started leasing more and more units as opposed to having them held by owner-occupants, though I would like to know how many were owner-occupied in the '90s. That being said, the writer suggested that SMU indirectly killed old people, which is just nuts. Anybody that owned a unit got fair market value.

Well, I recall some people he interviewed made that indirect implication, and he just reported on it. But, whatever. What SMU unquestionably did is buy up enough to control the HOA under the by-laws and force people to sell, old or otherwise, who apparently had no desire to do so. Now, did that break any laws? No. Was it ethically questionable? I think an argument could certainly be made that it was. Was it done to get the Dubya bookmobile? Who knows? Does it matter to me? No. I don't quarrel with anything SMU has done over there. But I'm not going to come to SMU's rescue and say there is no merit in the guy's article.

Bottom line--what happened happened, and whether it was for the library or something else, people were forced out of their homes who did not want to leave. I think whether they got paid market value or not is beside the point of the guy's article, which was to call a spade a spade.

"We are talking about rounding out a certain picture. I won't be coy about my own politics. I believe George W. Bush will leave the White House the most disgraced and failed leader in the Western world since World War II. Turning Dallas into his White House in exile will complete the impression that began with the killing of Kennedy. If we want to spend the rest of the century as the dead-enders' ultimate dead end, I think this is the way to do it.

Lots of people in Dallas do not think as I do. The president has many loyal and fervent supporters here. But even they need to think twice about allowing SMU to put his pyramid on the stained soil beneath the hull of University Gardens. All that will accomplish is to link the name of George W. Bush with an ugly escapade of institutional chicanery and arrogance."

Just a smidge over the top wouldn't you say?????????????

It's surely over-the-top writing, but Dubya is a very polarizing figure, dontcha know.

No kidding???????

He may not be everone's cup of tea but through his wife, he kinda belongs to us so if he wants to "stain" some of SMU's dirt with a Presidential Library, I say, "come on, bring it on." By the way, I think Clinton was a polarizing kind of dude but if he had suddenly decided to put his library on the SMU campus, I would have said, "welcome" to him as well..............