|
Letters to the Editor
Marxists behind protest
They blame America first, Marxist crowd was at it again in the "Books Not Bombs" strike. I say this not because every protester hates the U.S. and are Marxist revolutionaries, but because The National Youth and Student Peace Coalition (www.nyspc.net/home.html), the ones behind the march, are. Take a look at their Web site--their propositions and demands are unrealistic and sophomoric. They have a right to speak, but they really should stay in class and learn world history and international politics before demanding veteran world leaders to act contrary to our national interests. In addition, the organizers of many of the peace rallies are affiliated with Marxism and communism through ANSWER, the Not In Our Name (NION) project and the Workers World Party.
It is plain to see that Iraq is not cooperating with UN resolutions and is a threat to our security. I invite everyone to look at the evidence as sited by the Department of State, Department of Defense, the White House ("A Decade of Deception and Defiance" and "Apparatus of Lies"), British intelligence (three publications now), U.S. intelligence and our own representatives in H.J. Res. 114 "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq."
Our congressional and executive representatives have been elected to represent and protect us; it is up to every individual who wants to be taken seriously to research the information that is available and decide for themselves if they wish to follow our own elected officials and the pages of documents regarding Iraqi noncompliance and cruelty, or to believe in organizations who hate the U.S.; or France, Germany, Russia and China, who are following a course consistent with their own national interests and do not live up to their own standards (see Ivory Coast, Chechnya, and Tibet).
There wasn't a lot of protest when we went into Kosovo for humanitarian reasons to protect Albanian Muslims from Christian Serbs; but now that we face a regime that not only has a record of crimes against humanity, but also poses a threat to our national security, we hear a pacifist outcry from the left.
Chad Greskowiak
Political Science
Palmersheim shows bias
You hear the term "liberal media" strewn around more than ever these days. The truth is, it describes SCSU's University Chronicle. I am appalled by Joe Palmersheim's article "Walkout Unites SCSU." According to Palmersheim's article, 500 students walked out on Tuesday, which is 2.9 percent of the total students enrolled at SCSU. This indicates that 97.1 percent of the students were supportive of the Bush administration. I hardly call 500 students "uniting" at SCSU. On second thought, Joe was right. The SCSU students did unite. 97.1 percent of them rallied for support of the Bush administration.
People like George Bush and his administration are the reason why people like Palmersheim are allowed to express their opinion. Whether it's an uninformed opinion (like Joe's) or a bold fact, we as Americans are allowed to express our opinions. It's our First Amendment right. The people of Iraq do not have this luxury. If the people of Iraq express an opinion that is against Saddam and his regime they risk having their tongue cut out, or even worse--death.
Joe's article went on to say, "A small, unorganized counter protest of about 10 people proved itself to be merely an annoyance, yelling insults and singing an off-key rendition of I'm Proud to Be an American." Joe, the song "Proud to Be an American" is an annoyance to you? I mentioned some of the rights we have as Americans. Maybe, Joe, you should extend one more of those rights. Extend your right to leave!
Andrew Cruz-Moores
Class of '97
I'm responding to an article I read in the University Chronicle about the student protest called "Books Not Bombs."
I have two questions. The first is: what the heck is "Books Not Bombs" supposed to mean? Did any of the liberals who came up with this campaign actually think that slogan through, or does it just make them feel better when they say it? I fail to see how a military campaign can be won by dropping books, as I believe that bombs are far more effective at killing enemy soldiers and destroying buildings.
My second question is this. Did the editors of the Chronicle not notice any obvious bias in the article by Mr. Palmersheim? I quote from the article: "A small, unorganized counter protest of about 10 people proved itself to be merely an annoyance, yelling insults and singing an off-key rendition of 'I'm Proud to Be an American.'" Palmersheim also refers to the counter-protesters as a "source of amusement." Palmersheim's sneering distaste for the counter-protesters is quite evident. His loaded language (annoyance, amusement, off-key) is perfectly suitable for a commentary article, but not for a supposed factual news account of an event.
I ask the "Books Not Bombs" protesters to come up with a more intelligent slogan and I ask the Chronicle to please not allow its reporters to paint their articles with their biases, liberal, conservative or otherwise. Please be more professional in the future, okay?
Daniel Scott Gates
Class of 2001, Public Administration
(Joe Palmersheim's) remarks are a key example of why university and liberal newspapers are not taken seriously and not looked at as a real source for news. A reporter is supposed to be fair and balanced--not picking a side, just reporting the facts. This article was well written until the writer chose to take a shot at the protesters who were there to support their country and those who lead it. In this country do their voices hold no weight? Now how I feel about the war is not a concern here, but it is an attempt to show that reporters have an important role. That is to tell the story, not elaborate with his opinion. If that is what Palmersheim wants to do I suggest that he move to the opinions section, where I would welcome his point of view.
Christopher Thomas
Junior, Recreation
|
|
|
|
Privacy Policy Network Advertising Article Syndication
|
|
