Life is the only fair choice
Ms. Galjour’s Monday column about the injustice of our state offering a “Choose Life” license plate demonstrates the deplorable hypocrisy of the “pro-choice” movement.
In these days of political correctness, those with abortion rights agendas hide behind this benign label, suggesting all they are advocating is the conscious decision-making of individuals regarding the right to life of the unborn. If this were the case, those “pro-choice” crusaders should have no problem with people who choose life to express their choice on their license plates. I am curious to know what license plates in support of the opposing side would read- “Pro-Death?” “Pro-Abortion?”
I have seen many license plates encouraging people to save the manatees, the Louisiana pelicans or the rain forests. Never have I seen one advocating the destruction or death of those, and I can only imagine the public outcry environmentalists and other concerned parties would make upon their production. Yet, this column supports individuals demanding the right to produce the equivalent regarding human babies.
Worthy of additional note, Ms. Galjour is so quick to speak of this issue in terms of the “government interfering with religion.” In this way, she unfairly characterizes advocates for the right to life as being exclusively religious. Are we to believe people who do not practice religion automatically would reject such a life-affirming slogan? Do only religious people see life as something precious and valuable?
Finally, I find irony in Ms. Galjour’s headline, “‘Choose life’ plates unfair.” This bemoans the denial of people’s First Amendment rights through lack of license plate choices, without stopping to consider the unfairness of the act of choosing to take the lives, denoted as inalienable rights in our country’s Bill of Rights, of voiceless, unborn human beings before they even have begun. Yes, I agree, “some things aren’t really debatable,” and to me, this includes the unconstitutionality, immorality and evil of such a practice, and the duty of those of us who recognize this to speak tirelessly for those who cannot speak for themselves. Choose life.
Jane Garland Cranford, Sophomore — Psychology
Negative ads detract from candidates
With election day nearing, I steadily am amazed with the negative political campaign ads flashing every five minutes on T.V. It’s just ridiculous to make absurd comments and use scheming tactics to win an election. It surely doesn’t solve anything.
Suzy Terrell has aired some very negative ads against Mary Landrieu. She may not directly be responsible for the ads, but it certainly reflects poorly on her. Personally, I wouldn’t vote for anyone who campaigned negatively. If she had to smear another persons record to earn a job, then she doesn’t deserve it.
Granted, Terrell isn’t the only person running negative advertisements. The same thing happens every time elections roll around. I remember years ago that Mary Landrieu was running some negative ads.
The point is, negative ads don’t do anything positive for an election or anyone. They don’t solve the problems. Who cares about how Mary Landrieu voted on an issue long ago? Just because a commercial gives me this information doesn’t mean I am going to believe it. Commercials also once said cigarettes were good for you, and now we know otherwise.
No wonder there is always such a low voter turnout. Who wants to vote for slimy politicians that focus on other people’s reputations rather than focusing on the issues that can help the state of Louisiana? That’s like picking between being electrocuted or having your head chopped off.
Rachel Miller, Sophomore — Mass Communication
Hate speech mars campus desks
In light of the recent “serial chalker” and his or her literature on inequality, I’ve increasingly become aware of the plethora of messages students at the University have wished to convey.
CNN reported colleges were concerned that chalked walkways were turning into “billboards for ethnic hatred” but the truth is, these “billboards” are not limited to LSU’s Quad or any campus sidewalk alone. These messages are scrawled in ink or marker, carefully written in paint or carved into the desks of most classrooms at LSU.
The values of the messages vary, but the themes are recurring. From the smaller messages that proclaim “Suzy and Mike forever” or “(insert Greek letters here),” racism, sexism, nationalism and religion seem to be the butt of larger issues. What do the authors of the messages hope to achieve? Eternal fame? Until these vandals can let go of the fact that “the South will rise again,” or that “John Doe is a faggot,” hate, inequality and ignorance cannot and will not be erased. This is evident in the recent editorials geared toward the Confederate flag and also letters regarding George Juge.
The author’s chalking has long faded away, but his or her message has caused Louisiana State University students and faculty to think and react.
Claire LeBlanc
Sophomore — Mass Communication
Technology fee money doing its job
The strides being made in LSU’s race for computing accessibility have been very impressive. Student Government’s Director of Information Technology, Guy Pyrzak, has teamed up with the Office of Computing Services to help students make technology upgrades and services more efficient.
They have established student discounts with CompUSA, and other computer stores still are negotiating this possibility. I read today that Tiger Bytes, now accessible through your PAWS account, will allow each student a 50 megabyte storage capacity. This eliminates the hassle of carrying and losing floppy disks all over campus. Even the computer voting method used in Student Government elections was facilitated by OCS and Guy Pyrzak.
So, the next time you get your student discount on software purchases or store your course files on Tiger Bytes, be aware that your Technology Fee money has been going to good use.
Nick Arnold
Sophomore — Business Administration