Letters to the editor

Candidate not re-running

This past Thursday, many students went to the polls to elect their leaders for the upcoming year. Unfortunately for these students, one of the candidates ran a campaign that broke many of the rules by which all contenders are bound. Because of this, I appealed the results of the election on the principle that our campus deserves to have leadership that is ethical and full of integrity. The Elections Commission, a student-run governing board for SGA elections, agreed with this position. The Commission decided a runoff election should be held so students could vote in a fair and equal environment.

Although the Elections Commission ruled this campaign should continue for another week, I do not want the student body to be subjected to elections that will further divide this campus. Even though I believe that continuing this fight is not in the best interest of JMU, I will continue to work to ensure that the student government remains accountable to the students that it serves.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my campaign staff and supporters. They worked extremely hard and ran a campaign full of integrity that addressed issues we want to improve here at JMU. We will continue to work to improve the JMU community so that the great ideas from students will be implemented and acted upon.

JMU has students and leaders who are committed to finding ways to move this university forward. I hope we can move beyond this election and strive for a better tomorrow. I have learned a great deal from this experience. Most importantly, I learned that Integrity Matters Most. I wish you a great end to the semester, and look forward to working with you in the fall.

Lucy Hutchinson
junior
communication/international affairs

Schiavo case given too much attention

The Religious Right has embraced Terry Schiavo but most likely for the wrong reasons. The problem takes shape when they call her death a "murder," which is a strange word in our society. For the Religious Right, it can apply to Schiavo’s case, abortion, euthanasia and the outright slaying of another person. I cannot really accept these as examples of murder, but when using the same logic, the people we kill in Iraq are also examples of murders. Even closer to home, the people we give the death sentence to are "murdered" as well. I could care less about whether your definition of the word includes a phrase covering legality. My point is, don’t say that you’re pro-life and support capital punishment. Don’t turn your head when you see the reports of innocent civilians being killed by our troops.

Politicians have also embraced this storm of media coverage for the wrong reasons. If you haven’t heard, a recent GOP memo intended for senators’ eyes only was leaked. It revealed that the Schiavo case was "a great political issue" and that if fought properly, could yield a great number of supporters during the 2006 midterm elections.

Cases like Schiavo’s happen every day. It should not have been an issue and especially not a political one. Get your head on straight, America. Start reading real news, and stop caring about whether Michael Jackson waved on his way to court this morning.

Jack Hirsch
senior
computer science

LAFTA not the answer

In Jonathan Kelly’s article in the March 3 issue of The Breeze he says that creating free trade between Latin America and the United States would benefit those on both sides of the border. This is not the case. Free trade sounds like a great idea to most because of the name "free trade," and how can free be bad, right? Wrong. While free trade is very beneficial for large American corporations because they are able to ship their products without taxation to smaller countries, those on the other end of the deal are not as fortunate. As a result of NAFTA, thousands of poor, mainly indigenous farmers in Mexico have lost their land and their livelihood as a result of major American agricultural businesses exporting their products to Mexico for free and undercutting the prices of Mexican farmers. But if the American companies are selling food for less, shouldn’t that benefit Mexicans? In theory, yes, but in actuality, who is going to buy your products if there is no money in the hands of those who need to buy them? After 10 years, NAFTA has forced much of rural Mexico into bankruptcy, leaving thousands of families landless and penniless. If the Latin American Free Trade Agreement goes into effect, it will do the same thing in Latin America, but who cares as long American stock prices go up a little, right?

Matt Keenan
sophomore
Spanish/Latin-American studies minor