Letters to the Editor

T-shirts ‘harmless capitalism’

The House Editorial printed on Monday, Oct. 25 is a gross misrepresentation of the likely effect of the T-shirts and simply not well thought out. First, the exaggerated effect painted in the editorial of the T-shirts is ridiculous. Apparently happy Homecoming attendees and small children suddenly will be visually assaulted by an ‘I bleed beer’ T-shirt-wearing student — insert hysterical shrieks and crying children — thus ruining their Homecoming experience.

Second, the editorial asks "How ethical is it to copy SGA’s famous phrase?" and states that SGA should have trademarked the phrase. Unfortunately for the SGA, there already is a bleedpurple.com Web site, which belongs to fans of the Minnesota Vikings. The idea of "bleeding" a school’s color was in place as early as 1998 at Texas A&M University. This contrasts with a statement in the Nov. 21, 2002, University Council minutes, which places the inception of ‘I bleed purple’ here at JMU in 2001.

Since people are paying for these T-shirts, wouldn’t that lead anyone with a basic understanding of economics to believe that the designers simply saw a market which they then took advantage of? By the teachings of our capitalist society, shouldn’t they be commended instead of chastised? Have we even mentioned free speech yet? They’re not inciting violence, so The Breeze’s attempt to censor them is entirely inappropriate. Finally, when was The Breeze appointed the moral police? In the future, refrain from the passing of judgment on a harmless exercise of capitalism.

Lauren Zangardi
senior, political science

Breeze slights fraternity

Why aren’t "Absolut JMU" shirts, "JMU Beer Pong" shirts or even sexually explicit shirts such as "UVa. sucks, Tech swallows" covered in The Breeze when the "I bleed beer" shirts are?

The House Editorial in the Oct. 25 issue entitled "‘Beer’ T-shirt sale slap in the face for Homecoming tradition" stampedes the integrity of all Phi Sigma Pi members.

One week ago, Phi Sigma Pi raised over $800 for Multiple Sclerosis and the Meghan Stidham scholarship on the commons during a 24-hour sleep out. The Breeze did not even report it. In the beginning of October, Phi Sigma Pi raised a little over $2,000 for Multiple Sclerosis and Meghan Stidham Scholarship in Phi Sigma Pi’s annual 5K for MS. Coverage was included in the left bottom half of the front page with few details and fuzzy pictures. Also, each member volunteers individually. Yet, all of our good deeds seemed to be jaded by The Breeze because of T-shirts.

The individuals who produced the T-shirts, and did so separately from the organization, should not be ashamed and — rather — take pride in their good intentions and continuous hard work for the fraternity and the community at large. Perhaps The Breeze writers should consider how they’re jading this campus and making their readers more accustomed to highlighting bad news more than covering the good.

Candice Flandrau
junior, english/SMAD major
Brother of Phi Sigma Pi

Plastic surgery useful in medicine

I thoroughly was disgusted to read the article from UVa. columnist Sarah Barry, "Rising plastic surgery trend for kids alarming," in the Monday, Oct. 25 edition. That the staff of The Breeze could read this article and decide that they should print it at all — let alone without counter-argument — is the epitome of irresponsible journalism.

My brother was born with a cleft lip/palate and had both reconstructive and cosmetic surgeries when he was a few months old. Unless a person has lived with a physical hardship or is the family member of someone who has, that person cannot imagine the cruelty of children, as well as adults. How dare Barry insist that plastic surgery is a waste of money having never heard someone dear to her called a "freak of nature."

If plastic surgery only internalizes a child’s abnormality, my brother should be a prime example.

Instead, he was popular and outgoing in high school — he was a member of the Homecoming Court and elected Most Talented in his class — and is quite the ladies man, according to his friends. He believes so strongly in his own normality that, though the conservatory he attends medically excused him from an aural/oral skills course, he is taking the class.

I’m interested to know how many corrective surgery recipients Barry interviewed and how many staff members of The Breeze interviewed before republishing her article. I am ashamed that a paper that would print such biased, uninformed pieces represents my school.

Allison Cook
junior, history major

True Boston fans celebrate

Although it is difficult to admit, I truly appreciated James Irwin’s article about "bandwagon" Boston fans. I am a diehard fan who has lived outside of Boston his entire life — supporting the Red Sox through the best of times and the worst of times. I proudly wore my Red Sox hat and sweatshirt after game seven last year, even when my heart ached like never before. Where were the Red Sox hats last year? Where were they two months ago?

Those of you who have jumped on the "bandwagon" need to appreciate the fact that there are fans out there who have spent their whole lives supporting the Red Sox, even though they have not won a World Series in 86 years — my beloved 68-year-old Grandfather included. Now is not the time to start supporting this historic franchise just because they are re-writing the history books.

Unless you know that the Red Sox have five numbers retired — Carlton Fisk, Ted Williams, Carl Yastremski, Joe Cronin and Bobby Doerr — you probably have no business wearing Red Sox gear. Unless you know that a utility player from the ’70s now proudly announces games for New England Sports Network and is nicknamed "Rem-Dog," unless you know that Yawkey Way is the most famous street in Boston, unless you have driven all night — 10 hours — to witness a victory parade (like myself) and unless you haven’t shaved in three weeks nor changed your shirt (like my friend), you probably have no business claiming to be a Red Sox fan.

Andrew Hopley
junior, political science major

Your vote matters in election

Like most students, during moments of boredom, I find myself "Googling" those I know. Today, I tried it on myself, and what I found has struck me as ironic and timely. After entering my name into the search bar, a link for my previous university’s archives popped up titled "Campaigning at Case: Presidential Elections, 1892-2000: ‘Hair-Raising Election.’" And there it was, my young naive face from my freshmen year at Case Western Reserve University in 2000. The question posed to me that day in front of the library was simple, "What do you think about the election? Who are you going to vote for?" Looking back at my answer "Either one won’t change my life drastically," I am overcome with what ifs. Unfortunately, one did change my life drastically. The decisions made by the administration elected changed my entire life and college career one little step at a time. Looking back now as a graduate student in North Carolina and proud JMU alumna, I wonder if things would have been better or worse had the other guy won. Would I still have transferred to JMU? Would friends still have lost loved ones? Would fellow members of the class of 2004 still be searching endlessly for that first job?

But the most important thing that plagues me is the importance of voting this election and those who think their vote will mean nothing. I appeal to all students, faculty and staff — past and present — at JMU to go out to the polls on Nov. 2 and cast your vote because four years from now, you might find it could have made all the difference.

Carrie Hanayik
JMU alumna (‘04)
M.Ed candidate
NCSU College of Education

Inmates deserving of health care

The House Editorial published in the Oct. 21 edition continues a pattern of editorials that indicate little or no sociological understanding of issues discussed. I didn’t mind the implicit argument that there are legitimate reasons for students receiving flu vaccine. But it is narrow-minded to believe that such a meritorious argument must be paired with an argument against prisoners’ health. The piece came close to the position that people who are incarcerated are less worthy of health than other humans.

Incidentally, the argument about their incarceration status is not "weak" for taxpayers. We pay for the medical care of those incarcerated. Thus, a flu epidemic would mean that taxpayers would have to foot the bill for the catastrophic health care that would then be required. If the vaccinations alone make the editors uncomfortable, imagine how wonderful they would feel when that bill comes in. Can we make an intelligent case for students’ health without it becoming another reason to dump on some other disadvantaged group? The pitiable attempt to parallel the experience of being a student with being in a federal or state corrections facility tells me that this piece was obviously written by somebody who has no real understanding of the experience. It’s a sad day when people feel that they have to argue against someone else in order to maintain false illusions of superiority. It’s not a new phenomenon, but I live my life hoping one day at an educational institution, we could come up with some higher standards of ethics.

Nikitah Okembe-RA Imani
associate sociology professor

State responsible for inmates

The house editorial advocating that prison inmates do not deserve flu shots in the Oct. 21 edition is petty and tawdry. The Breeze ought not stoop to the level of institutional demagogue in order to come up with something to write about.

Whether prisoners deserve flu shots is irrelevant. They have been deprived of one of their basic rights — liberty — and for a period of time, the government has assumed a caretaker responsibility for them.

That responsibility includes preservation of health, which, in this case, involves vaccinations for influenza. If one follows The Breeze’s logic, one easily could deny inmates visitations, exercise, education and even food. After all, does any group of people not deserve to be treated humanely more than inmates?

The Breeze is right that college students should not seek flu shots. College students represent the epitome of health and fitness. We are young, sexy and have numerous options for exercise and recreation. If our living quarters are unsanitary, it is our own fault. We have no need of a flu shot because we are the least likely group to die from the flu, and even if we do catch it, we always can buy medicine and sleep it off.

If The Breeze cares that much about the present state of health, then why not analyze it and endorse a presidential candidate based on that analysis? The editorial board of The Breeze should tackle real issues instead of repeating media-generated hysteria and tripe.

Adam Sharp
junior, foreign language major