Letters to the Editor (Editorial Policies)
Posted on February 9, 2007

Article on protest missed the point — peace

In response to Craig Finkelstein’s Feb. 5 article correcting some of the fallacies the mainstream media has reported about the recent rally sponsored by United for Peace and Justice, you might have seen it for 10 or 15 minutes on CNN’s situation room the day of and after the protest. The story was sneaked in between ‘’Billary’’ coverage and another comparison of Barack Obama’s name with Osama bin Laden. Not to anyone’s surprise, Fox News focused on the “anti-protest” comprised of a dozen or so patriots (protesting anything, after all, is patriotic) including Iraq War veterans.

The alleged conduct of some of the protesters toward these veterans is deplorable. Even more appalling, however, is the irresponsible and reckless decision to go to war, still without any obvious reason, that caused the veterans on both sides of the picket line to be mentally and physically scarred. Furthermore, people were protesting against the Arab-Israeli conflict which the Bush administration has done virtually nothing to help with. Also, I’m sure that no protester is in support of any nuclear arsenal — including the United States’ — but do believe in diplomatic solutions with both Iran and North Korea.

Finally, media outlets in our country are based around sensationalism. This new breed of “infotainment” seizes upon already famous people doing very public things. Celebrities’ presence at the rally didn’t give any clout to what was said, just a few more seconds of coverage that wouldn’t have been given otherwise.

Brian Tynan, junior international affairs major

-------

Being one of the students that went to the peace protest in Washington on Jan. 27, I found the article printed to be swayed by bad news coverage. I will not deny the news coverage of the war veteran being spit on, which was appalling, low-class behavior on the protesters’ part.  However, I do blame the perceived intentions of the march on the press, where bad news is the “best” news.

Keep in mind that there were tens of thousands of people at the march. It was not thousands of people who spat on the war veteran and vandalized the Capitol building. The majority of people were friendly, receiving and respectful toward everyone, and the “angry” peace protestors were the ones that just wanted to create problems. Last time I checked, some does not mean all.

What we must realize is that the world’s problems cannot be solved all at one time. If the world is going to move toward peace, why doesn’t the United States become the example that everyone should follow? To demand the Palestinians to stop attacking people in Israel or to demand that Iran and North Korea stop developing nuclear devices without doing something in the United States first won’t work. If we develop a peaceful nation, then we can demand other countries to be at peace, not before! The only way to move toward peace is by demanding peace, not war.  That is what the intention of many persons at the march was.

Peace is all we want.

Vicente Rosa, freshman computer science major

-------

I want to respond to the “fallacious” article titled “Unpeaceful protest,” written by Craig Finkelstein in the last edition of The Breeze. Immediately, the author attacks the peace march put on by United for Peace and Justice because the marchers were “unpeaceful.” According to the author, the marchers were “unpeaceful” because 1) they did not denounce terrorism, 2) they did not “call for regimes like North Korea to cease enriching uranium,” and 3) they did not demand that Iraq insurgents stop beheading Americans in Iraq. The author seems to argue that if you were protesting the Iraq war, then you do not denounce terrorism or North Korea or Iran.

Why Finkelstein stopped there, I can’t understand. With the same reasoning, he could have denounced the protesters for not calling for the nuclear destruction of all Arab countries because all Arabs are terrorists. Why didn’t Finkelstein condemn the godless protesters for not denouncing Islam, since all Muslims are Arabs?

I’ll tell you why. Finkelstein stopped at point three because his argument is fallacious, absolutely ridiculous. What reason should Finkelstein have assumed that the entire protesting population supports terrorism or North Korea’s enrichment of uranium? By assuming he committed the fallacy of composition or applying a characteristic of a part to the whole. Using similar reasoning, Finkelstein attacks those who bought into the logic of UFPJ by protesting the Iraq war.

Should we buy into the author’s logic instead? Well, since his previous argument was completely unsound, I believe that it would be unwise to follow Finkelstein’s reasoning, or in the advice of President Bush, “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you, fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

Paul Arsenovic, sophomore political science major

Even cloven animals can touch lives

As a horse owner and animal lover, I found your house editorial on Barbaro to be narrow-sighted and way off base. People find meaning and learn important life lessons from many different things in our world. Why is it so contemptible to you that some people do indeed see a horse as a hero or a teacher? The animals in my life have taught me patience, compassion and loyalty on a deeper level than many of the people in my life. Shouldn’t we be glad that people in our modern society find any cause that brings them to feel some inkling of tenderness — even if it is “just a horse?”

Christine Letsky-Anderson, CISAT Creative Services director

Yes, Virginia, JMU does have biased professors

In reply to Jason Haney’s Feb. 1 letter to the editor, I found it amusing, yet nothing new.

Haney accuses Craig Finkelstein of writing “… fact-free, right-wing innuendo,” and citing a biased source, yet Haney then proceeds to use Media Matters for America as his source. The honest American would hardly consider the media unbiased.

Haney sputters that he does not know any of his “colleagues” that engage in propagating their political ideology in the classroom. Perhaps I can provide some examples:

A history professor I had in the fall semester of 2005 referred to “damn Republicans” in one lecture; he also blamed conservatives for the Great Depression.

I also had an education professor last semester who felt the need to point out that it was the conservatives who changed the name of the Bilingual Education Act to the English Language Acquisition Act, after he had implied that the “English-only” movement is racist.

Need I go on? Yes, “professorial abuse” does indeed happen at JMU — and we must all stop pretending it doesn’t, or it will continue.

Leah Sargent, sophomore music education major

JMU not as energy-ignorant as asserted

“Sound-byte politics” is something that I hope to never find myself or any other well-educated member of James Madison University participating in, as it appears to be ruining an entire generation. In response to Brian Armstrong’s Jan. 29 letter to the editor, I have but a simple plea. If one is going to complain about the students’ “lack of enlightenment,” then please, sir, realize that an entire student body’s intelligence is based on much more than a 30-second snippet on the evening edition of the local news. In fact, just last week, I have seen tens of students participating on the commons in passing a bill that calls for our own school to find sources of clean and renewable energy. I can only imagine that events like this would take many intellectual and “enlightened” students to organize. Please, don’t sell us short. I’d say the future looks quite bright, and if JMU students keep up the magnificent work, it could be an energy efficient one too.

Ashley Bertoni, sophomore political science major

Unequal news coverage denies fair exchange of ideas

Picking up a copy of The Breeze this Thursday, I was frustrated by the complete lack of coverage of a guest speaker hosted by a conservative social issues organization on campus.

Dukes for Life have held a handful of significant, newsworthy events this school year, sending press releases to The Breeze for each. The only mention of the organization has been an editorial counter-response to one. This very same event was on the front page of the Daily News-Record. Isn’t it unfortunate that an event held on campus receives front-page treatment from an off-campus newspaper, yet no notice from The Breeze, the official JMU newspaper?

A college newspaper should offer a balanced, engaging exchange. Repeatedly choosing to ignore certain issues is a disservice to the James Madison community and those who value that exchange. The Breeze owes its readers an honest, all-inclusive report of news and campus events. In the words of John Stuart Mill:

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind … If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

Please don’t deny us an exchange and possible collision of ideas. It is in this exchange that we grow, learn and mature.  In fairness, our positions on issues should not negate the newsworthiness of our activities and events.

Rynn Hickman, junior IDLS major