Letters to the editor
Smokers should take responsibility for actions
In regard to Mr. Gilbert’s letter criticizing UA’s plans to ban smoking on campus. He speaks of taking responsibility for one’s actions, and I couldn’t agree more. But what do you do when people don’t take responsibility for their actions?
When is the last time a smoker bent down and picked up another smoker’s dropped butt? When is the last time a smoker made an effort to stand downwind from potential non-smokers or moved away from people who were eating outside on campus?
Hopefully for a person who believes so strongly in personal responsibility this happens all the time because the smoker took personal responsibility for his habit. It’s a shame that all of those smokers don’t pick up after themselves, don’t pay attention to which way the wind is blowing, or don’t seem to consider if others don’t like the smell of cigarette smoke while they eat have caused a push for the campus to be tobacco-free.
Honestly, the non-smokers have already taken personal responsibility by, get this, not smoking (and hopefully staying away from places where smoking is allowed). It is not that I mind people smoking, but some courtesy would go a long way in helping others (non-smokers, especially) stand up for your desire to smoke on campus.
Why not get a group of smokers together and attempt to pick up those cigarette butts that litter the common areas and make an effort to stand downwind while you get your fix instead of smoking while walking on the sidewalks in the middle of a crowd of strangers? Taking the idea of personal responsibility seriously, especially when your actions directly affect someone else, would go a long way in making your case more believable.
Not all conservatives pro-war
This is in response to Abel Tomlinson’s commentary regarding possible war with Iran, as hyped by the Bush administration. The administration’s proposed actions are unconstitutional, as the current war has been unconstitutional all along. This proposal will be another act of aggression.
This behavior is common of rogues and dictators; Hitler invented “preventive war.” However, Iran is not the primary player in Iraq, as Saudis have committed half of the attacks, and the entire course of the war has played to Osama’s favor, as the current government is based on sharia law and is not secular as was Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Tomlinson is incorrect in saying that conservatives are increasing pro-war propaganda, because traditional conservatives, like me, follow the founders and oppose any foreign intervention or policing of the world whatsoever, whereas the neo-cons, who are anything but conservative, like the current administration who have hijacked the Republican party, are leading the pro-war charge.
Tomlinson also mentions Kucinich’s bill to impeach Cheney for threatening war with Iran, being in violation of international law and the Constitution. Fine, except international law is irrelevant and should not be cited because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Nevertheless, what disturbs me most about this is that there are many Christians who have blindly accepted the pre-emptive war theory and have rejected the just-war theory of Christianity as set forth in the Bible and discussed in John Jay’s two letters on the subject. Injecting God, or any morality, into this immoral venture is trying to justify killing in the name of God.
How can you be a Christian and accept anti-Biblical views regarding relations with men? The Bible says if at all possible we should live peaceably with all men. That’s what the founders believed and practiced.
Paul better candidate than Kucinich
This is a response to Amanda Tomlinson’s letter in the Oct. 3 issue of the Traveler. I’d like to start with an apology and move on to a rebuttal.
First, Tomlinson is entirely correct in Kucinich’s position on the War on Drugs. In a speech I saw him give, it seemed like he said we need to give more resources to fight drug use. I obviously misinterpreted him. However, clarifying one issue does not disprove my point: Kucinich supports an unconstitutionally large federal government.
Second, you list several facts about Ron Paul, but fail to mention why these advocacies are a bad thing. It seems like you’re implying that Ron Paul is a pro-life isolationist that wants to abolish public education. None of these are true. Specifically, his foreign policy relies upon non-interventionism, which respects the sovereignty of other countries.
No matter how good our intentions are, becoming involved (especially militarily) in foreign affairs always results in negative consequences. The way America treats foreign nations should not be decided by politicians in Washington, but by the American people. We should act through non-governmental organizations by donating money, food and supplies to assist needy people around the globe. When the government gets involved, it becomes corrupt and inefficient. You need to look no further than FEMA to find proof of that.
If I decide a law is unjust, I cannot simply ignore it. I have to use legal methods (my elected officials) to get it changed. Similarly, Congress cannot violate the law they’re supposed to follow (the Constitution), whatever their intentions may be. They must use legal means (amendments) to get it changed.
Kucinich is one of the most respectable members of Congress today; however, his unconstitutional advocacies lead me to support Ron Paul instead.
College Republicans smear Hillary, themselves
Have you no decency, College Republicans? Have you at long last descended to the level at which you must write, “Life’s A B****, Don’t Vote for One,” in front of Kimpel Hall, in order to stem your dwindling party enrollment?
You not only chalk obscenities on the pavement of this university, but you do so because you apparently deem it necessary to demean the current Democratic presidential front-runner as a membership ploy. It is an attack on both Hillary Clinton’s character and, more strikingly, on her gender, and should offend any decent observer.
This is unfortunately typical of current Rove-ian Republican tactics and of the type of people you espouse and bring to this university for political commentary (re: Ann Coulter), but I am certain that as an ASG-sponsored RSO, this is not the sort of political dialog that this university wishes to promote.
In using this abrasive message, you do not smear Clinton, but instead smear yourselves, and although you may condone these activities, the people of this university do not.
Explanation needed for comment about photo
I’m writing in response to Alex McKnight’s letter from the Oct. 12 issue of the Traveler. I’d be interested to know Alex’s explanation as to how publication of the image of a skinhead in attendance at Bikes, Blues & BBQ has “contributed to the already growing ignorance about what took place during World War II.”