Achewood, indicative of PC model of society
To the Editor,
I take issue with the letter to the Editor published April 12, 2004 titled Insensitive Achewood. Don’t get me wrong, I can see where the Deans are coming from. Some of Mr. Onstad’s writing is very controversial, sometimes using excessive language to satirize politics, or perhaps presenting us with a drawn picture of a stuffed bear extending his middle finger.
If an image such as that offends you, perhaps you should take a class on relaxation. Breathe in through the nose, out through the mouth, deep, calming breaths. I mean it’s a stuffed bear with a middle finger.
However, this doesn’t excuse the fact that the Deans fail to notice that the comic does serve at least two positive purposes. The humor, edgy as it is, stirs the readers’ emotion, spurring them to laugh, or, in this case, to simmer. In the case of “Insensitive Achewood,” the anger roused is being misdirected from the correct culprit, which is what the characters represent, to the strip itself and it’s creator. Don’t hate the little bigot squirrel; hate the foul political system he represents. Don’t hate the bear flipping you off; hate the social structure that supports the use of feminine aspects in men as an insult.
The Deans’ desire to censor this comic is actually counter productive to their cause, keeping people from questioning the problems in our society and then addressing them. The level of political correctness being forced on the media today is sickeningly oppressive to free speech.
Where can an unpopular opinion be safely expressed if not through centers of learning such as USM? Have the corporate monstrosity and the oppressive government already dug its dirty fingers so deep into society that even The Free Press is affected?
Chris Howe
Information Technology
Sophomore
Democrats, not Bush, trying to reinstate draft
To the Editor,
Whether or not Jeff Nutter was intentionally trying to deceive the readers of his recent letter to the Editor, I don’t know, but it was deceptive none the less.
Nutter’s letter cited that if legislation that is being sponsored in both Houses of Congress known as the ‘Universal National Service Plan’ was enacted then “All Americans, between 18 to 26, women included, would be eligible for a military draft to be instated when President Bush gets reelected in November. It would be phased in next spring. The purpose of this draft is to support the war in Iraq.”
The truth is that this piece of legislation is a political ploy by Representative Charles Rangel (D) of New York, who opposed military action in Iraq. The bill is designed to capitalize on what the sponsors believe to be a gullible electorate who could be persuaded that President Bush is attempting to reinstate the draft. Both of the House and Senate Sponsors, Rep. Rangel and Sen. Ernest “Fritz” Hollings, and all of the bill’s cosponsors (13 in the House, none in the Senate) are Democrats who opposed the war. (www.house.gov ).
The pieces of Nutter’s letter that disturb me the most is that the draft would go into effect when “President Bush gets reelected in November,” implying that Bush’s reelection would automatically mean a draft. President Bush has never proposed or supported such a proposal and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has described it to be an asset to have an all-volunteer military and has continuously rejected any suggestions of a draft.
Also if this bill miraculously passed Congress (which there is no hope for) either by getting the President’s support or by an override of a Presidential veto, it wouldn’t matter who was President because the draft would still go into effect.
If you want to lay out the reasons why you oppose the war, fine, do that. If you want to lay out your reasons why Kerry, Nader or someone else would be a better President than Bush, you can do that as well. But don’t go making stuff up. The voters deserve to have the opportunity to make an informed decision. Such lies and deceit are designed to take that opportunity away.
Matt Mower
Alumnus
2001
Hypocritical Christians follow flawed word
To the Editor:
In response to the piece that David Bates sent in I find some error in what he has claimed. He tries to say that Christians who don’t follow the whole Bible are hypocritical. The problem he does not see is that some progressive Christians have just accepted that there are errors in the Holy Bible. These sites quotes many instances where the book has errors: www.2think.org/hii/matt_err.shtml or http://ffrf.org/lfif/?t=stone.txt. They still accept Jesus as their savior so they are indeed Christians.
Also, if a Christian desires to follow God completely they will not go to a flawed version of God’s word first. For, as many writers know, you use primary sources first, rather than possibly flawed secondary sources. Many people, Christian or not, believe that there are errors in the Bible simply because it was written by human hand and that a direct contact with God (praying) would be a better course of action to lead to truths. If anyone has ever played the game telephone they’ll know that things are lost in translation.
For picking and choosing, how about following Leviticus 15:19-30 and locking up menstruating women? Or how about in any other part of the Bible?
A Christian who is a hypocrite is one who would say to follow Jesus and God but only learn of their wishes through a flawed book.
Matthew Riddell
Psychology Major
Freshmen
Moldy House? Don’t burn it down
To the Editor:
Thank you, Dave Bates, for your time, consideration and ignorance on the subject of Christians and gays. The Free Press, of late, has run editorial pieces written from the perspective of a (non gay) Christian who accepts gay relationships and, Mr. Bates, a Christian who does not support gay relationships. Perhaps we, the undersigned, who are both CHRISTIAN and GAY can offer a perspective that bridges the two.
Regarding Mr. Bates’ philosophy of Biblical authority, one must ask a number of critical questions. Would you, Mr. Bates, consider a woman’s menstrual cycle to be unclean (Lev 15:19 )? Would you demolish your house because it has mold (Lev 14:37)? Do you still sacrifice animals to God? Our guess is that you do not.
How, then, can you criticize those “progressive Christians” who “pick and choose what parts of the Bible they will and will not believe”? How would you and your fellow “non-progressive” Christians reconcile inconsistent statements such as the Old Testament’s precept of ‘eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’ in light of Jesus’ charge to “turn the other cheek”? The Bible is the inspired word of God written by MEN over centuries for various purposes. It is historical, not infallible. Please show us, because we must have overlooked it, the portion of the Bible that says one must accept the entire document in order to be considered a Christian.
Homosexuality has always been present in society. And, from time to time throughout civilization, there has been a prejudice against it. This prejudice came out of a clearly justifiable societal need, to allow the Israelites to achieve maximum procreation. But, times change, Mr. Bates, and one’s moral code must change along with them. Animal sacrifices, ritual purity and such have been dismissed, but the core principles of the Bible remain because they are still valid. Homosexual love complies with all of the basic teachings of the Bible; therefore the biblical prejudice against homosexuality must be dismissed as antiquated.
Zachary J. Violette
History Major, Catholic, Gay
Junior
Christian R. Hart
Nursing Student, Catholic, Lesbian
Second Year
Police no longer idle
To the Editor,
I was very pleased to learn that USM Police Chief Lisa Beecher has sent a memo to all her officers, asking them to reduce the idling of their cruisers to no more than thirty seconds except in unspecified special circumstances.
This decision is an important one, since it reflects the USM police’s recognition of the sustainability theme that infuses the administration of USM. One can see this theme expressed in USM’s new fleet of hybrid cars, the digging of geothermal wells for energy efficient new buildings, the student movement for bio-diesel for our buses and the switch to florescent bulbs and energy saving exit signs and other steps toward sustainability too numerous to mention.
It is notable that the USM police decision comes at the cusp of a statewide anti-idling program. Many of the vehicles that idle away in Portland and elsewhere are city, state, or private contractor vehicles. This idling contributes not only to Portland’s ozone and asthma problems, but in its waste of fuel and the wearing out of motors.
Portland’s city council, which has evaded energy issues with singular success [“What, me Worry?”] ought to emulate the USM police’s anti-idling decision.
Alfred Padula
President of the Green Campus Consortium of Maine
I was screwed in the National Guard
To the Editor,
Elated relief is how I would describe the sensation I felt while sitting in the office of USM’s Veterans Association (VA) contact person, Rick Wright. I was working out details of my financial aid package for next year, and the purpose of stopping by Mr. Wright’s office was the re-activation of my GI Bill benefits.
I completed a full term-of-service with the Army National Guard, and $283 per month, for every month I’m in school, is nothing to shake a stick at.
Based on the credit standing I will have at the end of this semester, I have another six full-time semesters to go. My 28 months of eligibility should carry me all the way to graduation and still have room to spare.
$283/mo x eight mo/school year = $2264 / year in financial aid that I earned via 6 years of National Guard service. Multiply by 3 years, and $6792 takes quite a chunk out of my overall college costs. Pretty sweet, right?
Wrong.
It turns out that for a reservist / guardsman to collect those benefits, they have to still be drilling regularly. So after verifying eligibility and submitting the proper forms I received a letter from the VA denying my claim. I was denied because I do not have a “current DoD contract” (DoD is the dept. of defense). In other words, the fact that I have done my time and been honorably discharged prevents me from collecting.
It would have been nice to have been made aware of this little catch 8 years ago when I signed up.
The VA, a fairly worthless organization, has also told me that because it has been more than 1 year since I was discharged I wouldn’t be eligible even if I started drilling again.
The recruiting ads, if they wanted to be fully truthful, should say “join the service and earn money for college, unless you do college after your term, in which case we’ll just screw ya out of it.”
Brian Walgreen