To the Editor:

 Uncategorized
Mar 282006
 
Authors:

Reading the March 27 piece regarding DUIs at Fort Carson, I was

struck by its focus and intent. Why not focus on the high success rate safety lectures, transportation and cab reimbursement have had (a 50 percent reduction in four months), and how these programs might be applied to Fort Collins’ own problems with DUI?

You go on to say “it’s no wonder the soldiers want to drink.” Would you make a similar remark with regard to the tribulations people of color, women, gays, lesbians, poor, etc., have faced and overcome?

Next, we find out “these soldiers are supposed to be representatives for our country, and therefore should take advantage of the services the military offers…,” as if enlistment straight out of high school and immediate combat experience magically add 15 years of maturity to one’s age, stress management and diplomatic abilities.

The next treatise, “it seems that soldiers think they are above the law since they went to war and are part of the military,” is completely unfounded. Where in the article, or anywhere else, does ANYTHING allude to or support that opinion? Military training effectively teaches respect above all else.

In your final assertion, you state that regardless, “Soldiers should be held to higher standards.”

As a privileged university student blessed with a good education and the comparatively easy job of putting out a small, lackluster (the editor spelled “soldier” as “solider” in the headline) student newspaper, do you believe it fair that someone who works much harder with greater responsibility for less pay (less than $6.50 an hour for a U.S. Army Private) be held to a higher standard than yourself? Really? As an editorial staff, what were you thinking? If this truly was an opinion representing the views of the 12 member editorial board, one hopes at least seven of these positions turn over in the near future, filled with individuals who preach acceptance and tolerance and understand and practice these virtues.

Seth Grant

Senior

Psychology

 Posted by at 6:00 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

To the Editor:

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Mar 282006
 
Authors:

Whatever became of the damaging press in February in your paper and in the Coloradoan regarding Dr. Davidshofer, director of the CSU Counseling Center, being “summoned to court” March 2 to answer questions about a former employee who allegedly embezzled at least $17,000 from the Counseling Center’s petty cash fund?

Davidshofer, a 30-plus year, dedicated CSU employee, who has been honored for his contributions to the university, deserves equal time in the press once his name and good reputation are cleared!

Mike Fisher, MSW, LISW Greenville, SC

 Posted by at 6:00 pm

To the Editor:

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Mar 282006
 
Authors:

In response to the article about the abortion ban, banning this

“personal freedom” is necessary and long overdue. Many laws hinder

personal freedoms. If someone cannot afford to pay their bills, they have the freedom to steal? Just because they had a “justifiable” reason does not make it OK to rob a bank. Nor does an unwanted pregnancy justify the murder of an innocent person.

Often, arguments for the right of personal freedoms are actually arguments for the right to harm others for personal gain.

“When a woman exercises her right to control her own body in total disregard of the body of another human being, it is called abortion. When a man acts out in the same philosophy, it is called rape” (Garton, “Who Broke the Baby?”).

As a country, we need to be supportive and caring to unwed, pregnant mothers. The common misconception is it is a sin to be pregnant outside of marriage. Have respect for women who choose to not take the easy way out. Do not condemn them or force them into the “choice” of abortion. If someone is truly pro-choice he or she will provide these women with alternatives, not solely promote one.

I would also like to clarify a few things for the author of this article;

abortion is no therapy for a victim of rape. It does not heal the wounds of rape and cannot erase what happened. Why condemn an innocent life to death for the crime of another?

“I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that even a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” – Mother Teresa Feb. 3, 1994, at a National Prayer Breakfast.

Sarah Rue

Freshman

Art

 Posted by at 6:00 pm

To the Editor:

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Mar 282006
 
Authors:

This letter is in response to the one-sided articles that have appeared in the Collegian the past couple of weeks having to do with the third anniversary of the conflict in Iraq. I realize history is not “in” at the Collegian (it is especially selective or non-existent if having to do with foreign policy before 1963), but please put our current situations in perspective with history. Most people still supported the war in Vietnam three years into that conflict. We had yet to even join World War I on its three-year anniversary. We invaded continental Europe six months prior to three years into our involvement in World War II, and it took us 11 years to suppress the fighters in the Philippines.

The point is that war is not decided in three years, or even in five or seven. It depends on the circumstances of every situation. History shows the common people tend to be frenzied during trying times. Every revolution, war, coup and regime change in the past three centuries has brought support and descent among the masses. There are reasons why, in their wisdom, the framers did not create a direct democracy, but a representative one. Am I the only one concerned that in these times we, the next generation of thinkers, gobble up academic postulations of rampant negative socialization, ethnocentrism, psychological conditions, racism and sexism, and yet point to the very victims of these conditions as the indicator of what course of action should be taken next?

Dan Hummel

philosophy

junior

 Posted by at 6:00 pm