Dear Editor,

‘

RE: ‘Don’t bail on government bailouts,’ By Subhan Tariq; May 5

‘

I have to say that, as a fifth-year student here at the University of Massachusetts, I am disappointed with your choice to even print Subhan Tariq’s article on May 5 titled ‘Don’t bail on government bailouts.’

I do not think there has been a day that I have been on campus and have not read the whole paper, cover to cover. While there are moments (I use moments because points would be too kind) that I agree with, the argument he brings forth is very poorly worded and frankly, not convincing one bit.

Tariq fails to differentiate the bailouts of major financial institutions and banks known by the newspaper-reading world as the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP), from the $787 billion stimulus package known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This is by no means a bailout of corporations and shouldn’t even be grouped into the conversation unless you are looking at the increase of government spending as a whole.

Tariq also brings up the increase in Citigroup’s stock and how this can or has benefited the country by making the government’s share worth 300 percent more. With market volatility still high, the financial future still up in the air. And with Federal Reserve chairman Bernanke saying that the economy will continue to have large job losses, how is the government’s share in the companies that’s created this recession supposed to comfort me? These bailouts of corporations shouldn’t have happened in the first place.

In 2008, these same executives were paid upwards of $32 billion dollars in bonus compensation while the housing crisis was about to be in full swing resulting in the largest drop in asset value for African-Americans ever. Where were their bailouts?

Yes, some of them shouldn’t have bought homes in the first place; but, as millions were losing their homes, billions of dollars were being handed out to the country’s richest and I should support and finance their plans with my hard-earned tax dollars?

If Tariq continues to write his columns, I would hope that he take more time and effort to write a piece of worry journalism. Submitting articles that looks like it was rushed to fill space on a page makes The Collegian look unprofessional when there are worthy journalists their to fill the pages with readable content, not just words

‘

Corey Dineen

UMass Student

‘

‘

Dear Editor,’

As an avid reader of The Daily Collegian, I constantly find myself intrigued and impressed by the editorial page of the newspaper. Studying some journalism, I have found that opinionated pieces are the most interesting and conversational sections of the paper. However, I have never been so offended and disgraced by a piece until I read Andrew Prowten’s article, entitled ‘Patriots’ Day more than 4-20.’.

In reading Prowten’s work, I feel as if because I smoked pot on April 20, I am not proud to be an American. Because I exercised my rights as a U.S. citizen, I am not grateful for the sacrifice soldiers have made to grant me the freedom to smoke a blunt on the hill with my friends.

Part of the festivities on Monday was showing the movie ‘Half Baked’ on the water towers, which Andrew somehow took offense to. Would he rather have aired ‘The Patriot’ or ‘Black Hawk Down,’ so as to incite a massive conglomerate of students to sing ‘God Bless America‘ while waving American flags back and forth?

I had barely gotten halfway through the article before the apparent message was found: He thinks he is better than people who smoke pot. By heading back to Concord and watching old men dressed up li
ke Paul Revere ride around yelling ‘The British are coming, the British are coming,’ he thinks he is more patriotic than everyone out on the hill on 4/20. He goes so far as to say our ‘ignorant actions’ discredit the privileges we have, and to question whether we deserve to call ourselves Americans.

But of course, since he goes and watches reenactments and has a family history laced in battle, he is more of an American than me, the lazy pot smoker who is too high to care about anything. I am way too high to articulate an opinion on your poorly written editorial.

He asked, ‘have we forgotten how privileged we are as Americans’ and claim people swear they are oppressed by the economy. But what struck me was the line, ‘I hate cops’. That, sir, is utteryly disgraceful and unappreciative. He must really hate not having to worry about killers and drug dealers running around the streets of great old Concord, terrorizing the public. He must hate being safe from harm and being protected by people who put their lives on the line everyday for your civil liberties.

As it is laid out in the First Amendment, we are allowed the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, so I cannot completely shut down Prowten. But, I can use that same freedom to critique it. Instead of coming off as an arrogant and ignorant ‘patriot’ who questions the very fiber of our society, he should have stuck with a story about your brother’s patriotism. Attacking pot smokers and labeling us as anti-American is incredibly offensive and unwarranted.

Patriotism is defined in the dictionary simply as ‘love for one’s country.’ Nowhere does it say you must constantly be thanking everyone around you for your freedom. In fact, patriotism is measured by how you exercise the freedom given to you by the soldiers’ sacrifice. Just as people celebrate holidays differently, we all show our own brand of patriotism. If Prowten took a moment and got down off his high horse, his eyes would be opened to this. And maybe, just maybe, he would consider me, the lazy and ignorant pot smoker, slightly more patriotic. Then again, I guess I could just join the army and then everyone would really believe me to be a patriot.’

Liam B. Feldstein

‘

‘

Dear Editor,

Iran tested the launch of a Scud missile from a ship in the Caspian Sea, which was designed to provide the capability of launching intermediate range missiles from cargo ships sitting off coastlines. Also, within a few years Iran will have long range missiles capable of striking North America.

Iran could have nuclear warheads available to mount on missiles in late 2009. The U.S. and other countries do not have missile defense systems to ward off an attack. Counter strikes could be launched against Iran, but this would not prevent Iran from launching an initial strike based on irrational thinking by Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Iranian cohorts.

The Obama Administration is making conciliatory gestures towards Iran, but is not making any progress in curtailing Iran‘s nuclear development program. According to Walid Phares, an expert on global terrorism and the Middle East, ‘the perception in Tehran is the Obama Administration will not use everything at its disposal to apply pressure on Iran.’

Furthermore, Obama’s apparent bow to Saudi King Abdullah is perceived as an act of submission and weakness by the international community.

I fear Obama’s naive blunders will embolden Iran to pursue and possibly use its nuclear missile capabilities.’

Donald A. Moskowitz

Londonderry, N.H.

‘

Dear Editor,

While I didn’t support the liberal students’ protest of Don Feder, after attending Dr. Mike Adams’ recent lecture, I now find that the criticism campus liberals received make their detractors seem hypocritical.

The manner in which Adams handled his protestors worked against his stance. In response to the disruptive hissing at the beginning of his speech, he said, ‘Hiss if you wish your mother had an abortion.’

When the hissing stopped, he said that he won. His sentiments exemplify the gross dichotomy created by pro-life rhetoric: that being pro-choice signifies pro-abortion. And by suggesting that our mothers conceived us under conditions that may have necessitated an abortion, he trivializes the reasons, many of which neither he nor I could possibly imagine, of why some women receive abortions.

Moreover, he immediately received applause and some laughter from supporters for this, showing that perhaps pro-life conservatives occasionally enjoy abortion jokes, but that doesn’t mean Adams and his supporters are distasteful, right?

Even worse, Adams demonstrated the same intolerance and close-mindedness with which campus conservatives have branded liberals. He ostensibly claimed, ‘That’s why it’s so important to have a conversation on the opposite of an issue.’

During the question and answer session, Adams naturally showed a clear bias against the pro-choice viewpoint. But more importantly, he disregarded his own advice and treated ‘questioners’ inconsistently.

When the pro-life student in front of me stood up and made a comment toward the pro-choice advocates, he welcomed her thought and expanded on it. But immediately following her, when a pro-choice student spoke, he was agitated that she didn’t ask a question and stated, ‘Since you’re not going to ask me a question, I’ll ask you a question.’ His attitude was obviously different, not like that of someone who would be having a ‘conversation’ with a differing opinion.

The discrepancy in the instance above might not be too alarming to some, but the pro-choice student who asked the following questions was met with a completely absurd reaction.

For whatever reasons, Adams asserted that she was not asking him a question, when, in fact, she asked three distinct, well-organized and well-prefaced questions.

After the lecture, I calmly addressed the pro-choice student who had made the first comment and asked her if she supported this privileging of the conservative viewpoint in this type of forum. She responded, ‘Well that girl did ask a long question.’ She doesn’t deny that she was treated differently and evidently supports a bias toward lengthy questions. After I exchanged some further comments with her and her friend, the latter snidely asked, ‘Huh, why are we talking to about this right now?’ I reiterated my initial sentiments and walked away, but what I should’ve said was that, despite his comment about conversations with the other side, Adams clearly had no intentions of a dialogue, and from speaking with the two of them, nor did they.

My point in painting conservatives with the same brush they’ve used against liberals is not to persuade anyone from being pro-choice or pro-life, but rather to point out that, for the sake of being decent, everyone defecates, i.e., everyone’s excrements stink.

‘

Vinh Nguyen

UMass Student