The headline to Jason Dore’s article about President Bush’s speech should have read “State of the Union worse under Bush, but the U.S. is ‘winning’ the war on terror so I don’t care.” His column, “From the Right,” was one of the most contradictory articles I have ever read.
His three paragraph conclusion and his headline, “State of the Union better under Bush,” are undermined by the other 80% of his article.
First of all, his disagreement with Bush’s pledge to end America’s dependence on oil is ludicrous. Who doesn’t want America to end its dependence on oil, besides the oil companies?
Secondly, I don’t know whether to be happy that he saw through Bush’s half-hearted comments on rebuilding the Gulf Coast or to be angry that he doesn’t see how this contradicts the article’s headline.
Despite all his complaining about Bush, he ends his column with recognition of how great a job Bush is doing. This is a preposterous conclusion to make after having recited the many shortcomings of the Bush Administration.
His erratic thoughts, and nonsensical conclusion make it hard to acknowledge this edition of “From the Right” as a cohesive argument.
 
Evan Hendrix
Sophomore
International Studies
 
Does SG support everyone’s speech?
I found Michelle Gieg’s letter to the editor Thursday quite amusing. She wrote, “we feel that it is inappropriate for students to be censored on this campus,” concerning the charges brought against Phillips. If this statement is true, then why did Student Government and Chancellor O’Keefe try to censor Confederate flag supporters?
On several occasions, O’Keefe expressed that the University discouraged the use of the flag anywhere on campus. SG also made an official statement voicing their disapproval of the flag. As far as I can remember, no Confederate Flag supporters broke any law or violated any LSU conduct code. Although there were people who were arrested for interfering with the flag protests, none of them had Confederate flags.
So once again … what is LSU’s position? Do they want to censor students, or do they want us to have free speech? Chancellor O’Keefe and SG need to think about certain issues before making any more misleading statements.
 
Matthew Muller
Sophomore
History
 
Where does the limit of free speech lie?
In the Feb. 2 Daily Reveille, I saw a cartoon by Alice Wack that I viewed as insulting, even though I’m not Muslim. I’m totally fine with free speech and satire, but making fun of a religious figure is a bit much. Religion, for most people, is part of who they are. If someone were to make fun of Christ, my God, the ruckus that would be raised! Usually Wack’s cartoons are witty and I enjoy them, but come on, insulting an icon of millions of people is just wrong.
Although I don’t agree with Islam and/or its practitioners’ stances on most subjects, even I wouldn’t go so low as to insult Muhammed. We don’t insult Jesus when the radical Christians come to town.
If we allow religion, which is fundamental to many people’s sense of self, to be insulted, how can we tell people to not insult racially and ethnic minorities, homosexuals, transexuals, etc?
 
Stephen Fitzgerald Taylor
Sophomore
Communication Studies
 
Cartoon offensive to reader
I am writing in response to the cartoon by Alice Wack, published in Thursday’s Daily Reveille. I was greatly offended by Ms. Wack’s implied mockery of the situation that is going on in response to the Danish cartoons printed depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a demeaning manner. She seemed to be making the implication that free speech and satire should explain the entire situation and make it justifiable.
Where do we draw the line for free speech from utter disregard of an entire people? While I agree free speech is an integral part of our society, what purpose did the Danes have in printing these cartoons other than to provoke Muslims?
Muslims are known for their deep regard and respect for the Prophet Muhammad; it’s pretty easy to come up with something to incite them. By depicting the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb shaped turban and other insulting cartoons, are Muslims supposed to believe this wasn’t a blatant attack on them and their ideology?
It’s funny how the banner of free speech is waved when it’s Muslims we are talking about, but when it’s any other group, no matter how small, we race to stop it. Honestly, I’m pretty tired of the label of terrorist being used as a blanket statement on a group of people that are over a billion in this world. Muslims don’t only get upset when Prophet Muhammad is disrespected, but also when other prophets like Jesus, Moses etc., (may God’s peace and blessings be upon them all) are shown in a negative light.
Our duty is to protect the honor of all the prophets and respect them as they deserve. The fact that she showed the three men as “Radical Muslims,” was as
if that made it warranted to make a joke at their anger and offense to the situation. I assure Alice Wack that Muslims of all regions and varying levels of faith have been outraged by the cartoons. Yes, we do know the meaning of satire and
free speech, but making a complete mockery of a person and repeatedly pouring fuel on the fire is another issue altogether that no Muslim can stay quiet about.
Why couldn’t the Danes have
put their energy and time into promoting understanding and dialogue rather than taking a cheap dig at a prophet who is highly revered by those who practice Islam and even those who don’t.
 
Nadia Haque
Senior
Psychology
 
Editor’s note: The Daily Reveille and Alice Wack had no intentions of insulting Muslims or Muhammed. We simply sought to cover a controversial topic. Nonetheless, we stand by our cartoon and the right to freedom of speech.