Letters to the editor

Bad interpretation

Gerry Wachovsky’s article about David Rovics is full of poor logic, ideas taken out of context and a fairly ignorant interpretation about this man’s lyrical content and vision. While I have never heard of this man, nor of his music, I couldn’t help but feel that Mr. Wachovsky’s got it all wrong.

The fact that he equates Rovics’ thoughts to those of the liberal movement is quite ludicrous. As a liberal, I do not agree with everything he says, as he can be radical at times. However, twice in his column, Wachovsky directly or indirectly associates Rovics’ lyrics with the liberal movement and progressive clubs here on campus. They are not one and the same. Using your logic, I could rightfully say that since you are ignorant, all writers of the Daily Forty-Niner are ignorant too. Nice job.

Do you know what “cretin” means? It means a stupid, vulgar or insensitive person. Anarchists, Marxist intellectuals and tree-huggers do not fall in this category. However, I think you do.

Your interpretations of Rovics’ songs lack any intelligent reasoning. If you re-read, “Promised Land,” you’ll see that Rovics is sensitive to another perspective, unlike yourself. Do I think the attacks on Sept. 11 were justified? No. But I can understand why someone would make such an attack. That’s not being anti-American; that’s being honest.

One last thing: Just because someone does not approve of all of the United States’ actions does not mean they should move elsewhere. That does not solve the problem. However, I get the feeling that you would rather sit back, with your mouth closed, so that you’ll seem like a “proper” citizen. You just go ahead and do that, Wachovsky. I’d rather show some initiative and try to do something. But that’s just me, I guess.

— Mark Oshiro,
political science major

Friendly challenge

I am writing in response to Gerry Wachovsky’s last opinion piece. I think it is great that Gerry listens to music critically. It is a positive thing that I think many people in this country don’t do. However, I must write because I read his opinion quite critically and I think he’s missed the point. Gerry, I invite you to step up your game a bit. Think of it as something of a challenge. Instead of taking on some band that just goes with the flow of progressivism, I think you should try taking on some heavy hitters in the game.

Why not do a critical reading of Gore Vidal’s “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace,” or Noam Chomsky’s “Understanding Power?” It would be great to get your opinion on either of those works. I and my so-called anti-American progressive friends will be awaiting your critical replies.

— Sean Orfila,
journalism major

Slanted view

This semester I have noticed a disturbing trend in the Daily Forty-Niner where a growing majority of opinion columns distinctively lean to the political right. While columns are by definition opinion pieces, I find it hard to believe that on a college campus there are not also writers willing to offer a different perspective. It is troubling that many of the columns discussing timely political or social issues demonize or dismiss “liberals” as misguided, hypocritical, ill informed or even dangerous. This is an attitude more suitable to the Fox News Channel than an institution of higher learning, where issues are supposed to be examined from all sides and not just a single perspective. Many of the Daily Forty-Niner’s columnists play fast and loose with the facts, often omitting or misrepresenting details in order to support their point.

A particularly egregious example of this appeared recently in the piece “Liberals Need Closure on Bill” (Daily Forty-Niner, Nov. 12) by Jason Garthoffner. Garthoffner offers an overly simplistic analysis of the USA Patriot Act, flippantly dismissing criticism of the act as “carping,” rather than addressing the legitimate and specific concerns raised about this controversial legislation. He also says “the most noteworthy safeguard that nobody has bothered to mention is the expanded powers of the bill expire on Dec. 31, 2005.” While this is true, what Garthoffner doesn’t “bother to mention” himself is that U.S. Justice Department is currently lobbying support for the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, or Patriot Act II, which would extend the expanded surveillance powers of government beyond those addressed in the USA Patriot Act. Not yet law, Patriot Act II is currently the subject of intense debate and review, a process that was not afforded to the USA Patriot Act, which was ram-rodded through congress in the climate of fear and uncertainty following the events of Sept. 11.

Garthoffner also attempts to invalidate “liberal” criticism of the USA Patriot Act by pointing out that Executive Order 9066, which interned Japanese-Americans during World War II, was signed by a Democrat. This leads to Garthoffner’s most outrageous assertion: That the American Civil Liberties Union “actually supported the action” of interning Japanese-American citizens. This is utterly absurd. The ACLU was vehemently opposed to internment on the grounds that it was unconstitutional and in 1942 initiated a number of lawsuits on behalf of interned Japanese-Americans (Hirabayashi v. United States, Korematsu v. United States, Yasui v. United States). Garthoffner refers to a dispute between the Northern California chapter of the ACLU and the national office, but this was over the tactics in pursuing the Korematsu case, not over the issue of internment as Garthoffner implies.

Finally, Garthoffner attempts to paint Al Gore and others who have likened the USA Patriot Act to something out of a George Orwell novel as “arrogant” and confused, quoting Orwell’s 1942 denouncement of pacifists as “pro-Nazi.” Garthoffner obviously misses the point of the “big-brother” characterization of the USA Patriot Act by critics, somehow interpreting concern and a call for review of this Act as lending support to those that would do us harm. I would argue instead that by acting out of fear instead of reason we allow our enemies to succeed.

Inflammatory commentary and revisionist history is not constructive. Every columnist in the Daily Forty-Niner or any other newspaper is certainly entitled to criticize Al Gore, George Orwell or anyone else. But if a writer is really interested in sparking a constructive dialogue or making progress towards the resolution of an important issue, they also have the responsibility to base these criticisms on facts, not hyperbole.

Perhaps Garthoffner could benefit from another piece written by Orwell, who in 1944 tempered his position on pacifists:

“In my opinion a few pacifists are inwardly pro-Nazi, and extremist left-wing parties will inevitably contain Fascist spies. The important thing is to discover which individuals are honest and which are not, and the usual blanket accusation merely makes this more difficult. The atmosphere of hatred in which controversy is conducted blinds people to considerations of this kind. To admit that an opponent might be both honest and intelligent is felt to be intolerable. It is more immediately satisfying to shout that he is a fool or a scoundrel, or both, than to find out what he is really like. It is this habit of mind, among other things, that has made political prediction in our time so remarkably unsuccessful.”

— John McQueen,
research assistant, graduate center for public policy & administration

Different strokes

I was outraged to read Matt Logan’s column, “Grocery Store Strikers Should Pay Their Fair Share.” Not only does the article lack substance but it also uses demeaning and condescending language, making one wonder what they teach in the journalism department. The first rule of professional journalism is that if we want to be respected as writers we must show respect to the subject matter about which we write, whether it is President Bush, al Qaeda, or the grocery store strikers. Calling the strikers “stupid” does not make one’s position stronger (a lesson both Matt Logan and Gerry Wachovsky need to learn).

The only “arguments” Matt came up with against the strike are that he is paying $200 a week and thus the grocery workers should pay their fair share, and that corporate greed is “the way it is” and the strikers “better get use to it.”

The first argument remindes me of the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott of the 1950s. To say, “I pay $200 therefore you should pay $200,” is akin to a brother from Memphis, Tennessee telling the activists “I sit in the back of the bus, this is the way it is in the South, and you better get use to it.” Instead of fighting against the American occupation one Iraqi will tell his brother stop fighting, “Occupation is the way it is, and you better get use to it.”

Women would still not be voting and blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus if we adopted the “this is the way it is and you better get use to it” attitude. Tuition rises — we better get use to it. Terrorist attacks — we better get use to it. Racism and sexism — we better get use to it. Patriot Act stripping our civil rights — we better get use to it. Enron and Iraq — we better get use to it. This is a prescription for citizenry in a dictatorship, not in a democracy.

No Matt, if it is not just, we will never get use to it. This is how progress has always taken place: not because some governing power was benevolent and progressive, but because enough pressure was placed upon it by the people. This is how apartheid ended, this is how the Berlin wall came down and this is how European colonialism ended in Africa. In a true democracy, the people must use not only voting, but also demonstrating, striking, boycotting, and civil disobedience activities in order to hold their (s)elected officials accountable.

The grocery store workers strike is not only about Kroger’s and Ralph’s and Safeway. This is a profound clash between two school of thoughts: the school of corporation greed and bottom lines (lowering workers wages, lowering workers benefits, increasing profits by any means necessary) against the school of people’s rights and welfare. Three years ago there was a net gain of 22 million jobs, now a net loss of 4 million jobs. In these three years we have gone from surplus of trillion-five, to $500 billion deficit. Police, teachers, firefighters, grocery store workers — the common people — are abandoned. While jobs and wages are going down, the cost of tuition is going up. The number of Americans unable to afford health insurance rose to 50 million.

While unable to pay for public education and health care, the federal government is able to send $87 billion to the killing fields of Iraq and Afghanistan. Something is deeply unbalanced. Something must change.

Matt asks grocery workers to pay their fair share. The fair share of what? Let me help here: It is paying a fair share into the deepest pockets in the American service industry — the insurance corporations. Instead of helping to change an unjust and dysfunctional system, Matt suggests that we “get use to it.” Instead of fighting for their rights Matt suggests we fit in to this unjust system. This is what the black Christian leadership told Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1950s. Getting use to injustice is not how we the people move forward. The grocery store workers are on strike because they care about worker’s rights, care about justice and most important they believe that we can’t let corporate greed destroy the unions and run the country. Let Enron and Iraq be our lessons.

Matt ends his article with a threat that is not warranted. “Get out of my way,” he writes, as if the strikers stop him or anybody else from entering the stores. I spend hours with the strikers on the curb. The strikers are there to invite us to care for our families in a broader way than buying cheap groceries (Matt’s way). They invite us to choose what kind of America we want our children to live in: an America run by corporate greed or America that takes care of her people. Seventy percent of Americans already vote with their feet and stay away from Ralph’s, Safeway and Kroger’s. For the other 30 percent, the doors are always open. The picket line challenges one’s integrity, not one’s physical entrance. The strikers are not in your way Matt, they are the way.

— Yehuda Maayan
sports psychology major

Calendar

Display Ads