Reader prefers ‘rational arguments’ to ‘hippie rhetoric’

To the Daily:

While reading the account of Sunday’s Peace Rally (Peace parade displays growing anti-war sentiment in Ann Arbor, 02/10/03), I was overcome by a sense of disgust that I have not felt since listening to Democrats whine and complain after the 2000 presidential election. The sheer ignorance of the arguments and sentiments expressed by the protesters makes me wonder how any of them made it out of high school.

Let’s start with comments made about the Iraqi people. Two students expressed their disapproval for war because Iraqi civilians will be killed and “human rights will be lost.” Under Saddam, the Iraqi people enjoy no human rights; they are denied food and shelter, there are no free elections and, if they oppose the present regime, they are murdered. A war to oust Saddam would offer the Iraqi people the liberty and freedom that we take for granted, just as it has for the people of Afghanistan. Another ridiculous quote was that a war on Iraq “could not possibly be justified.” As I already mentioned, Saddam is actively oppressing his people, and let’s not forget he tried to exterminate the Kurds with banned chemical weapons a few years back, both of which are clear violations of international law. He’s in material breach of two U.N. Security Council resolutions, which is grounds for the use of force. He supports, funds and supplies terrorists. He’s even threatened to use his populace as a human shield against bombings and invasion. What more will it take to justify removing him – a mushroom cloud over Manhattan? It seems to me that the only thing that isn’t justified is why we haven’t gone in there and ousted him yet.

For the sake of the Iraqi people and the citizens of the world, Saddam must go now. Call me a warmonger, but at least I can validate my position with rational arguments, as opposed to moronic hippie rhetoric.

Jay Schafer

Engineering senior

The letter writer is the chief justice of Michigan Student Assembly’s Central Student Judiciary

Litman’s use of ‘G-Dub’ disrespectful to institution of U.S. presidency

To the Daily:

I am tired of seeing Joseph Litman refer to President Bush as “G-dub” in his columns (The senator who cried wolf, 02/11/03). It is immature and highly disrespectful. Regardless of one’s stance on the policies of the Bush administration, it is still important to respect the institution of the American presidency. If Bush were standing in front of him, I highly doubt Litman would call the president “G-dub” to his face.

Eli Segall

LSA junior

Daily applauded for supporting lecturers’ right to organize labor union

To the Daily:

Thank you for coming out in support of the establishment of the Lecturers Employees Organization (Power points, 02/11/03 ). Undergraduate students are becoming aware of the appalling treatment received by non-tenure-track faculty at the University.

Some lecturers have worked at the University for more than a decade and are still considered “temporary” workers. Many are paid less than graduate employees on this campus, despite their doctoral degrees. Lecturers are an important part of the University community and deserve to be paid living wages and granted the dignity of real job security.

Undergraduates understand that when non-tenured faculty face a stressful and non-sustainable working situation, we, the students, are likely to receive lower quality teaching. We stand in solidarity with the lecturers and will be prepared to support the LEO in any job action that may be necessary as they build their union and fight for a fair contract with the University.

Mike Medow

LSA junior

The writer is a member of Students Organizing for Labor & Economic Equality

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.