Letter writer’s vote respectable, his opinion is

To the Daily:

Jeff Spencer, people are telling you that you cast a vote for
“hate, oppression and incompetence” because you did
(It is liberals, not Bush supporters, who actually need to grow
, 11/05/04). I’d tell you the same thing. While I
probably wouldn’t call you stupid (and Democrats, that
ain’t changing anyone’s mind), and while I respect your
right to vote, I’m not going to respect your vote. President
Bush is a president who actively discourages opposing viewpoints,
who barrels ahead directly in the face of evidence that his actions
are not only erroneous but actively harmful. He looked at an empty
treasury and a war with mounting, staggering costs and thought to
himself, “Hmmm. Great time to cut taxes.” This is a
president who not only refuses to admit mistakes but has made it
his schtick. This president supported an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution banning gay marriage, but what is equally horrifying
is that he knew full well that there was no chance of it passing.
He did it to galvanize the hatred and prejudice against gays and
dirty liberals in this country because that’s what fed his
campaign and, ultimately, his re-election. Congratulations —
you have cast your lot with the bigots and the homophobes.

So now we have a devastated budget, underfunded schools, a
social policy of fear and hate and a world stage that regards us
with resentment and distrust, and this country just signed up for
more of the same. You’re not stupid, but you were duped. Bush
pissed on your head, told you it was raining and sold you a broken
umbrella. Don’t expect me to respect that.

Jill Siegelbaum



A Libertarian offers his perspective on the election

To the Daily:

I thought that I should at least attempt to give an
outsiders’ perspective of the election. I was once a Bush
supporter, but changed my opinion about a month before the
election. I instead voted for the Libertarian presidential
candidate Michael Badnarik because his platform was most reflective
of my views that government should be as limited as possible, and
personal liberty and responsibility should be promoted. Thus, I did
not vote for President Bush because of his deficit spending and
oppressive views on homosexuality. I could not consider voting for
John Kerry because he wants to raise taxes and socialize health
care. So, because most people never even heard of my candidate,
here is what I noticed about everyone else.

First, Kerry never seriously had a chance. Most of his
supporters will admit that they did not promote him for any quality
that he had, but instead because of a negative — that he is
not Bush. While this had the effect of galvanizing the leftist
opposition, the middle ground of American voters obviously did not
see enough quality in Kerry to win their vote.

Second, the Bush versus Kerry fighting got worse and more
annoying as time went on. When I first got to campus, the election
was just gaining momentum. Stickers and buttons were being handed
out, and campaign volunteers were signing up. As we got closer to
election, the fight got more heated. One could not walk anywhere
without seeing a sticker, a sign taped up, sidewalk chalk messages
or flyers handed out. The two sides seemed less intent on winning
votes and more on seeing who could put the most junk out there. All
of this stuff just ended up making campus look like a waste-paper
landfill. I am surprised that leftist environmentalists have not
been up in arms about the waste of resources and collection of
filth. One side would tear down junk and put up their own. Even up
in Bursley (a nice hall full of engineering, art and music majors)
people were fighting like children. People would rip down stickers
and whatnot off of doors and put up the opposition’s. This
just led to people yelling in the hallways and lots of pissed off
residents. All of this just makes me believe that the two sides
were more interested in pissing each other off than anything

Third, the post-election turmoil is almost worse. The
Republicans can gloat, and the Democrats can do nothing but sling
insults. Respectable ideas are hard to find in the mess. Note I
said respectable, so this eliminates Zack Denfeld’s column
about blue puddles (Blue puddles, 11/05/04). If the best
responses to Bush’s victory are costume days, lay-ins,
sleepable benches and random anti-capitalist/commerce comments,
then no wonder the Republicans are gloating right now.

I don’t know if anyone cares or if they just want to
insult each other. However, there are positives to take out of
this. Bush’s election will hopefully get us out of Iraq more
quickly because he can get started right now. He will continue to
cut taxes, and letting people keep more of their money is never a
bad thing. He will hopefully also start privatizing Social
Security, which has been needed for a long time. This socialist
program of Franklin Roosevelt’s has been hampering Americans
for far too long and is doomed to failure. Maybe next time we will
have two candidates who will compete with good ideas instead of
insults. Until then, stop the complaining, and see what positives
we can draw out of the next four years.

Clark Ruper

LSA freshman


Daily misstates court case concerning marijuana law

To the Daily:

Your story, A2 Voters Pass Initiative to Legalize Medical
(11/03/04), misstated the medical marijuana case
pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, Ashcroft v. Raich. That case
cannot overturn Ann Arbor’s new medical marijuana law, nor
the 10 existing state medical marijuana laws.

The right of states and cities to protect medical patients from
arrest under their local laws has not been contested by the federal
government and is not an issue in this case. While the court could
give the federal government permission to resume enforcing federal
marijuana laws against patients, it is important to remember that
99 percent of all marijuana arrests are made by state and local
authorities under local laws. Even if the government prevails in
Ashcroft v. Raich, overwhelming protection for patients will remain
in place.

Bruce Mirken

The letter writer is the Director of Communications for the
Marijuana Policy Project.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *