Letters to the Editor
To the editor:
I am appalled and offended by the column
"The walls come a-tumbling down" (Opinion, Jan. 22) by Matthew E. Caster.
It exudes hypocrisy, ignorance and borderline racism.
Caster states, "Iive never liked (the Rev.
Jesse) Jackson and I never will." To begin with, he never says or alludes
to why he has so much animosity for Jackson.
Jackson has been nothing short of a god
sent for humanity. He has played a pertinent role in the advancement of
civil rights and has dedicated his life to attaining equality and justice.
I am deeply disturbed as to how anyone can hate Jackson unless they know
him personally, because until then, all one can hate are his views.
Caster goes on to write one of the most
ignorant lines I have ever run across: "(W)ealthy white males are by far
the most discriminated ethnic group on the planet." If that was supposed
to be funny, it wasnit. That statement was a mockery of the civil rights
movement and everything it stands for.
The column then embarks on the infidelity
Jackson and former President Clinton committed. Was it wrong? Yes. Did
they acknowledge their mistakes and own up to them? Yes.
Need I remind anyone that Republicans are
also guilty of adultery? Sen. Henry Hyde confessed to having had an extramarital
affair, as did two former speakers of the House: Newt Gingrich and Bob
Livingston. Before blaming leading Democrats for Americais "moral decay,"
one should be fair and just in his or her assessment.
Furthermore, Caster says that attacking
Jackson would not solve anything and would only result in a mailbox full
of angry e-mails from liberals and African-Americans. Attack him for what?
Jackson made a mistake, which does not erase the instrumental role he has
played in shaping America to what it is today.
To even suggest that liberals and African-Americans
are the only ones who appreciate the contribution Jackson has made to society
is preposterous and insulting.
I believe everyone is entitled to his or
her own opinion, but I can only validate those who give sufficient adducers
to support them. Caster fell short.
sophomore, broadcast journalism
Abortion isnit trivial
To the editor:
The following is in response to Mary Carradineis
guest column ("Bush quickly drops facade," Opinion, Jan. 23).
President Bush was not dropping a "compassionate
facade" in his decision to approve the executive order to ban the use of
federal money for overseas groups that promote or provide abortions. He
was instead demonstrating compassion for those who cannot vocalize their
He was exercising compassion for the unborn
in an attempt to prevent the "painful and unsafe" procedure a child endures
in the process of having his life ended in his motheris womb.
Comparing the freedom of choice involved
in patronizing Jack in the Box with the choice to end the life of a fellow
human being reveals the trivial value the author places on the lives of
those being aborted. Life is a continuum, beginning at the instant God
forms us in the womb.
The choice of one person to end the life
of any other, be he 10 weeks, 10 months or 10 years old, should not occur.
When it does occur, we can -- and do -- mandate what happens to those who
choose to commit these acts. As long as abortion takes place, the author
will not have her wish that everyone in this world be "allowed to make
his or her own choices." The choice of those aborted is never considered.
We do not know what life holds in store
for the "nameless women" who may now bear the children they conceive rather
than ending their lives, but we do know that those they bear will not remain
forever nameless. One right answer to the question of abortion does exist.
secretary to the dean of libraries
The propaganda war
To the editor:
I am responding to conservative champion
Justin Rayis 10th anniversary defense of the Gulf War, a war fought "for
all the right reasons." In the guest column "Conservative camp cries ‘Foul!i"
(Opinion, Jan. 22), Ray cites the war as an example of why we should resume
military expansion and fill our executive branch with war-minded people.
Rayis first assertion is that the Gulf
War was a humanitarian war. He paraphrases former President George Bush
as saying that Iraqis atrocities against the Kuwaitis were reasons enough
to fight. There are a number of cruel dictators in the world who either
were put in power by the United States or were supplied weapons by the
United States (like Saddam Hussein).
The United States government is self-serving.
It is not a humanitarian organization.
Ray admits that aside from humanitarianism
Bush was also fighting for economic reasons. Most folks believe that our
troops were deployed to keep Hussein from stockpiling Kuwaiti oil and driving
prices skyward. In reality, our troops risked their lives to raise profits
for the Republican Party benefactors.
Finally, Ray reminds us that the Gulf War
was so popular that Bush enjoyed an unprecedented 90-percent approval rating
"only to have people forget a year later." Itis true that we as a nation
were suckered, at least for a while. That we forgot about it a year later
shows how shallow the propaganda war really was. I will always support
our troops, but that doesnit mean Iill support the whims of our government.
Now the Republicans want to spark another
arms race, both on the ground (the competing-technology Missile Defense
Shield) and in space (a star fleet to protect our satellites). We as a
nation should use this time of peace to encourage global disarming of weapons
of mass destruction and work to fight global warming. The time of exempting
ourselves from these responsibilities in favor of an all-powerful military
‘Thank you, Ms. Pattoni
To the editor:
The "Smoke screens and curtains on campus"
(Opinion, Jan. 18) guest column by associate professor Angi Patton was
quite informative. Previously, I had been impressed by the "Learning. Leading."
image campaign. Although an employee, I had not realized the number of
outstanding programs and faculty at UH. And, perhaps foolishly, I assumed
good faculty and programs equaled a good university.
Patton graciously shared her brilliant
insights into the devious nature of the devils perpetrating the image scam
upon us. I certainly did not notice, and apparently neither did the numerous
nationally known and world-renowned faculty members who are the centerpiece
of the image campaign. Imagine the shock when they finally acquire Pattonis
wisdom and realize they have been had.
The only oversight in Pattonis critique
is her failure to address the damage done to poor Shastais credibility
as a result of being duped into taking part in this "cosmetically induced
For what must seem like a very frustrating
venture, given her "peersi" ignorance in the face of such obvious transgressions,
Patton might take at least temporary solace in the marketing adage that
says "good advertising makes bad products fail faster." But only time will
In the meantime, I would suggest Patton
seek out a text that illustrates the fundamentals of critical thinking
and argument. There are plenty of incoming freshman who have advanced beyond
the concepts in their high school texts and no longer need them -- perhaps
Patton could borrow one.
William D. Moon,
Development Information Services
Letters to the editor are welcome from
all members of the UH community and should focus on issues, not personalities.
Letters must be typed and must include the author's name, telephone number
and affiliation with the University. Anonymous letters will not be published.
Letters are subject to editing for clarity, language and space. Letters
may be delivered in person to Room 151, Communication; e-mailed to firstname.lastname@example.org;
or faxed to (713) 743-5384.