I became very upset when I read the article by Ryan Loyd in

Monday’s Collegian, in which he presumptuously goes on about how

Democrats have a preoccupation with who is at fault concerning the

tragedy of Sept. 11.

This article is not only demeaning to the “stupid” Democrats,

not to mention the media puppets of ignorance, but it is also

insulting to Republicans who are forced into an “us against them”

mindset after reading the article. Unfortunately, Mr. Loyd’s

overzealous attacks on the Clinton administration, Democrats and

the media are only a reflection of what is going on in politics

today.

While I personally do not think Bush has done a fantastic job as

president (a sorry economy, one massive terrorist attack and two

expensive wars all in the course of his presidency seem too much to

be solely coincidence), my personal opinion is that the issue no

longer is whether these occurrences could have been prevented, but

rather, what to do now that they have happened.

What’s going on reminds me of a couple children in a fight, both

assailants refusing to quit because the one claims, “he started

it!” In this particular case, the Republicans are the ones whining

about who began it all, but the real concern (as any good mother

would tell her child) is not who started it, but who will finish

it. It is time for both parties to grow up, quit squabbling and

above all turn their thoughts to the future instead of dwelling on

a past that cannot be changed.

Abigail Fay

Freshman, equine science

“How rude!” -Stephanie Tanner (“Full House”).

In regard to Sara Crocker’s article “Rudeness infiltrates our

culture,” I believe that Ms. Crocker plainly displayed only a

distaste for several trends or occurrences in contemporary America,

without completely discussing the issue of rudeness. Crocker argues

that such TV shows as “Punk’d” and “Viva la Bam” have affected the

behavior of society by playing ridiculous pranks or by wearing

trucker hats or T-shirts with a heartagram logo on them.

While Crocker may be right in assuming that the practical jokes

of the actor and pro-skater are frivolous, they are just

entertainment. It doesn’t affect how we treat each other. Most

people still have courtesy and respect for their friends and peers

but still might play a prank on a friend or family member. Why not?

Laughter keeps us happy.

Besides, pranks, practical jokes and profanity have a history

past 2003. Snoop was working on some gangsta’ s*** in the ’90s,

’80s hair-bands could be the best practical joke of all time,

Richard Pryor cursed in many comedy acts in the 1970s, and the Beav

of “Leave it to Beaver” was tricked into climbing in a giant soup

bowl on a billboard in the ’60s.

None of this is new. None of this behavior is doing any harm, so

why attack entertainment? As the saying you mentioned goes, “It’s

all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Now it seems instead,

‘It would be really funny if you did lose an eye’ (plus it would be

great ratings).” Well, I have seen “A Christmas Story”; it’s old, I

laughed and I still have both eyes.

Travis Sharpe

Sophomore, economics

One sub sandwich store with a clever advertising idea, four

young ladies in thongs, eight semi-bear butt cheeks… and one

approving CSU student. For those who only browsed over the pages of

the Collegian on Monday you may have missed the Cheba Hut’s ad (pg.

3) that showed four women with their backs turned and their

buttocks out, only slightly “covered” by thongs and the line:

“Let us toast your buns on 4:20:04.

This ad was cause for many heated debates across campus, with

its many detractors voicing their disapproving opinion quite

adamantly. I am not one of these critics. I found the ad to be

humorous and cause for an innocent chuckle. And surprising to the

ad’s feminist-laden critiques, I am now not going to sexually

harass the next women I encounter at a bar. Because of it, I do not

now think less of the female gender. And even though I looked at

the ad, I still support equal gender rights in the workplace. This

was simply a creative way to increase sandwich sales and not an

attempt to mold Collegian readers into the epitome of what feminist

scholars despise. To its critics, please take a moment and simply

appreciate the “beauty” at the butt of this advertising

campaign.

Justin Andrew Anderson

Junior, speech communications and political science

To all those Republicans that don’t understand why people blame

the president, let me try to explain why some people do.

First off is the economy. Either the president is responsible

for the economy or he isn’t. If he isn’t then Bush is no more to

blame for the economy right now then Clinton is. So if you say

Clinton is responsible for the economy, and you believe presidents

aren’t responsible for the economy, then you are a hypocrite. If

the president is responsible for the economy then Bush is

responsible for it. When Clinton came into office he also inherited

a recession, but it did not take him four years to fix it. Bush has

had four years and he has not fixed it. So again, if you blame

Clinton you are a hypocrite.

Next is Sept. 11, 2001. Again, either the president is

responsible or he isn’t. If Bush isn’t responsible for Sept. 11,

2001, (nine months after Bush took office) then Clinton isn’t

responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing (two months

after Clinton took office). If you believe this and still blame

Clinton then you are a hypocrite. Now if the president is

responsible for Sept. 11, 2001, then Clinton is responsible for the

things under his watch. Clinton arrested the perpetrators of the

first WTC bombing and never blamed Bush Sr. Bush however, has not

caught Osama bin Laden, and went on an unrelated side trip to Iraq,

and blames Clinton.

Finally, the most important reason people blame Bush is the fact

that he is the president. He is supposed to be a leader. A good

leader has to take the blame sometimes for things that aren’t their

fault, like when a restaurant owner apologizes for a wrong order.

That’s why Truman said “the buck stops here.” Because Bush is

president is exactly why he is responsible.

Brian Zimpfer

Junior, computer science

To all those Republicans that don’t understand why people blame

the president, let me try to explain why some people do.

First off is the economy. Either the president is responsible

for the economy or he isn’t. If he isn’t then Bush is no more to

blame for the economy right now then Clinton is. So if you say

Clinton is responsible for the economy, and you believe presidents

aren’t responsible for the economy, then you are a hypocrite. If

the president is responsible for the economy then Bush is

responsible for it. When Clinton came into office he also inherited

a recession, but it did not take him four years to fix it. Bush has

had four years and he has not fixed it. So again, if you blame

Clinton you are a hypocrite.

Next is Sept. 11, 2001. Again, either the president is

responsible or he isn’t. If Bush isn’t responsible for Sept. 11,

2001, (nine months after Bush took office) then Clinton isn’t

responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing (two months

after Clinton took office). If you believe this and still blame

Clinton then you are a hypocrite. Now if the president is

responsible for Sept. 11, 2001, then Clinton is responsible for the

things under his watch. Clinton arrested the perpetrators of the

first WTC bombing and never blamed Bush Sr. Bush however, has not

caught Osama bin Laden, and went on an unrelated side trip to Iraq,

and blames Clinton.

Finally, the most important reason people blame Bush is the fact

that he is the president. He is supposed to be a leader. A good

leader has to take the blame sometimes for things that aren’t their

fault, like when a restaurant owner apologizes for a wrong order.

That’s why Truman said “the buck stops here.” Because Bush is

president is exactly why he is responsible.

Brian Zimpfer

Junior, computer science