Instructor explains ‘liberal propaganda’
Jason Dore’s article on intolerant “Liberal Propaganda” featured pictures of my office door in Coates Hall, warranting a brief response. First, materials posted reflect a wide variety of viewpoints ranging from satire to thoughtful criticism and, yes, shameless inflammatory anti-Dubya hype. My intention is to spark debate over issues largely absent at LSU and even in our national media regarding democracy. Assuming that America can invade a country and force democracy upon them by gunpoint seems misguided even if done with the best intentions.
Ben Barber’s book “McWorld versus Jihad” ought to be required reading, since deferred democracy is no democracy at all.
Second, Dore makes a mistake when he condemns “Liberals” as being intolerant of those who disagree with them. He forgets Ashcroft’s condemnation of dissenting citizens as “anti-American” supporters of terrorism, or Dubya insisting that everyone on the planet is “either with us or against us,” but Dore is correct to be suspicious of those who adopt such tactics. Nazi Germany allowed the Fuhrer to claim unprecedented power because their economy was in shambles and Hitler fed their patriotic blind faith in his right-wing militaristic leadership through a fear of foreign enemies. As a teacher of public speaking and student of persuasion, I believe it should raise eyebrows when the current administration makes comparisons between Hitler and Saddam while themselves demonstrating intolerance for democratic process and civil liberties. Celebrated author Toni Morrison has warned that these conditions encourage the “Nazification of America,” deeply disturbed that most Americans are oblivious to all but a few of the Bill of Rights (who misses rights they never knew they had and why?), the expanded police powers of the Patriot Act, and erosion of the governmental checks and balances necessary for a constitutional republic.
My only intolerance is for those who blindly follow, too ignorant or cowardly to think for themselves and test their ideas and convictions against informed disagreement. As Benjamin Franklin observed, “Those who would sacrifice their liberties to secure temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Shaun Treat
Instructor & Graduate Student
Anti-war protesters aren’t patriotic at all
I would like to respond to Thursday’s letter entitled “Anti-War Activists Are Patriotic.” First, let’s define a “patriot”: “One who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests” — Merriam Webster.
I consider the president and secretary of defense to be “authority.” It’s not patriotism. I’m sure protesters feel they are supporting America’s best interests, but they should pay attention to facts and history. Here’s a refresher:
In 1980 Hussein invaded and waged an eight year war with Iran. Millions died. In the late 1980s Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people.
In 1990 Hussein invaded Kuwait. President Hussein has repeatedly violated 16 United Nations Security Council Resolutions, one was/is openly seeking nuclear capabilities on the international market.
Hussein “lost” two tons of agents used in making biological weapons.
Hussein expelled U.N. weapons inspectors from Iraq, violating the Gulf War cease-fire. For 10 years Hussein refused to allow U.N. human rights reporters access to Iraq. Type the words “Iraq and torture” into a search engine for details.
Hussein publicly voiced approval of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Eyewitnesses placed Bin Laden at Hussein’s palace shortly before the attacks.
In 1978 Hussein successfully OPPOSED Egypt’s attempts to reconcile Jews and Palestinians in Israel and Gaza.
Hussein refuses to disarm.
If we go to war with Iraq, it will be a campaign to oust Hussein from power, not to slaughter the innocent people of Iraq, whom Hussein has threatened to use as “shields.” Hussein is against peace in the Middle East and has repeatedly been a catalyst for conflict. Yes, there is an increased risk of another attack against the United States if we go against Saddam. However, the longterm risk is exponentially higher if we allow him to retain power and continue to foster terrorism, seek after weapons of mass destruction and violate the human rights of his own people. Saddam Hussein must be removed from power for the hope of peace in the Middle East, America and the world.
I support the President and those willing to fight for peace. God bless them!
Matt Storey
Junior — Pre-Medicine
Freedom of speech has limitations
This letter is in response to Tyler Comeaux’s letter about how LSU Police unfairly moved abortion protesters out of the Quad and into Free Speech Alley. Comeaux claimed that the protesters’ rights to free speech were infringed upon. I’m sorry Mr. Comeaux, but you were wrong.
There are several types of public forums [places for free speech]: traditional, dedicated and non-public.
Traditional forums are public property, generally outside, and free speech has historically had more protection: such as sidewalks, public parks and the steps of the capitol.
A dedicated public forum is also public property, but the government has a right to control the logistics of it: such as where and when, like in an auditorium and marches. The government can control where this speech is held but not what is said.
Non-public forums are public property, but you have no rights to speech: such as military bases, prisons and libraries.
The entire university can be treated as a dedicated public forum. The University [a.k.a. the government] has every right to tell protesters where and when they can exercise their free speech rights. Speech in the Quad is like speech in the library. If the protesters had gone into the library to protest, most everyone would have been upset with them.
The LSU Police and the University were trying to maintain an environment conducive to learning and were completely within their legal rights to tell the protesters to leave the Quad and go to Free Speech Alley, a dedicated public forum.
Tristi Bercegeay
Junior — Mass Communication
Abortion kills more than Iraq war will
In light of the recent reigniting of the abortion debate, I would like to pose a few questions and make a few statements. First of all, I consider myself Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. How you ask, simple: every woman should have the choice as to whether or not she has sex, but once she chooses to have sex, she has made her choice. That’s a part of life; you make your decisions and deal with them.
The thing that really confuses me is how any person that believes in God or values a human life can think that abortion is OK. Do you think God is looking down and saying, “Oh, you decided not to let the life that I am putting on Earth live, well that’s your decision.” From what I have read personally in the Bible, I think not.
Finally, I challenge all of the anti-war protestors to really examine what they stand for and believe in. The majority of people who are anti-war are against war because they do not wish to see any human being murdered. Well I think they need to re-examine their protest, there are more than one million babies killed each year in the United States from abortion, yet you are protesting a war to keep you safe. Wars are very high tech now and the military doesn’t target civilians, my guess is that if we go to war, there will be less people killed than there are abortions this year. I hope this letter makes some people think twice about abortion.
Raymond Barranco
Freshman — History
Be careful if you dare to go bare
I am writing in response to the [column] in Thursday’s edition of The Reveille. Jennifer is correct in saying that women who flash their breasts deserve to be on film. I think these women know exactly what they are doing, drunk or not. Come on, like you didn’t know you could be on film, how many “Girls Gone Wild” videos are there out there now, even Snoop Dogg did one.
However, what I have a problem with is the way society views these women, who do flash and end up on the videos. I have heard them called a gamut of lewd names, like slut, for one of the milder terms. But, oh let a man run around with no shirt and it’s OK, he is a manly man. I think Demi Moore put it best it the soundbite on page 13 of The Reveille, when she said, “There’s this idea that if you take your clothes off, somehow you must have loose morals. There is still a negative attitude in our society toward women who use a strength that’s inherent — their femininity — in any way that might be considered seductive.” Therefore my sentiment for Mardi Gras is “bare as you dare.”
Doris Glass
Junior — Mass Communication