Letters to the Editor

Oracle exhibits bias, covers liberal candidates more

As a senior, I have been lucky enough to read The Oracle for four years. I have known three out of the four editors during my time here, and used to write features for The Oracle. I used to love reading The Oracle, but as the years have progressed I find the only good thing The Oracle has given me is high blood pressure.

I am not trying to demean or insinuate that you are bad writers; it is just your topics and your blatant liberal theories that are making a lot of students angry. I am waiting for The Oracle to hand out free copies of Fahrenheit 9/11.

Last week, Sarah Robinson wrote in a very warm tone that she thought your writing was biased. In response you suggested that maybe Republican candidates should visit our school and they would get the coverage. I completely agree with that; however, I have a suggestion. Instead of only covering the points that Kerry made during his visit, maybe you should have interviewed representatives from the College Republicans and gotten their response to his visit.

As a Republican college student, I think that many people need to be aware that not everyone at this campus is a left wing liberal or a Democrat. Most days I see more W04 bumper stickers than Kerry/Edwards stickers.

As responsible journalists, I think that you should try to cover both sides equally. You can begin by not printing pro-Kerry cartoons and interviewing more Republicans. I think it’s bad to prey on college students who are too lazy to go out and research their facts or information themselves.

Elise Lever is a senior majoring in communication and women’s studies.

‘W’ is hardly the right choice for women
RE: Column, “‘W’ doesn’t stand for women,” Oct. 4

In response to Monday’s opinion column regarding George W. Bush and the women’s vote: We agree.

In this upcoming election, many things are at stake besides the issues surrounding the war, such as women’s reproductive rights. In this regard, “W” is not for women. A vote for George W. is a vote for government control of women’s bodies. In the weeks left before the election, our group is working to inform everyone of the truth behind the issues surrounding “W” and reproductive rights. So thank you to Sebastian Meyer for your column.

For more information on our group you can visit our Web site at http://www.geocities.com/feminist_student_alliance

Alicia Wilson is the secretary of the Feminist Student Alliance and speaks in its name.

Bush does not benefit from corporate contracts in Iraq

I believe that Stephen C. Bedell made a number of unfounded accusations in his letter. Bedell claimed that another columnist, Adam Fowler, “compared environmentalists to anti-Semites.” I reviewed Fowler’s original column (“War In Iraq About Freedom, Not ‘O.I.L.'” 9/28/04) and found that Bedell had overstated the case. Fowler did not — I stress the word “not” — call environmentalists “anti-Semites.”

The second unfounded accusation is implicit in a major point in Bedell’s letter. In the seventh paragraph, Bedell claims that President Bush went to war to ensure that “some people get multi-million dollar no-bid contracts…[while others] get shot at, injured or shipped home in a flag-draped coffin.” He claims that these were the president’s true motives for going to war.

Bedell’s first fallacy is in his distinction between the contractors and the soldiers. The wording implies that the contractors are getting filthy rich and are not in danger. Bedell may distinguish between the contractors and the soldiers, but the terrorists currently operating in Iraq have made it clear that they do not. Contractors have been publicly beheaded, mutilated and hung for public display in a manner reminiscent of barbarians. If a person works for a contractor serving in Iraq, he or she has, just like our military, volunteered to risk life and limb in our stead. The contractors are trying to help the people of Iraq, but the terrorists don’t care.

The second error is in his assumption that Bush and Cheney are actively seeking to give money to contractors. The reasons for this are never clearly stated. I have often been told that the reason business was given to Halliburton is because Cheney was once an executive there. I wonder that no one has noticed the past tense. Our vice president gave up a great deal of money to serve our nation; to me this seems to indicate a high degree of integrity and enthusiasm for his job. Why should the president and vice president wish to help companies where they no longer work? There is no evidence of bribery. The contractors’ support in an election is not guaranteed to overcome possible backlashes and reversals of war. There is no motivation for the administration to run the country in the interest of the contractors, and so Bedell’s claim is incorrect.

Thomas Smith is a sophomore majoring in electrical engineering.

Bush’s statement about draft cannot be trusted

Adam, you stated in Tuesday’s column (in bold letters in the middle of the page) that Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld have all denied the possibility of the draft — which is great.

The main problem is trust. Why should we begin to trust what these people are saying? It is well documented how many times they have lied (“misled,” “distorted”), as I’m sure you already know.

Whether they have denied it or not, they do not deserve four more years to prove they’re trustworthy on matters of the military draft.

Anthony B. Cavalone is a senior majoring in criminal justice.