Editor:
I'm disheartened by the devolution and polarization of American politics we've seen in recent years--particularly as seen in the public outcry over a message from President Obama to our school children about the importance of their education that was both harmless and important. I challenge those parents who feared that his message would transfer a message of socialism to their children to watch the President's speech online or read the transcript. Incidentally, I find it quite telling that when Ronald Reagan did the same in 1986 or George H.W. Bush did the same in 1991, there was no such public outcry.
As both a parent and an educator, I'm truly disappointed at the lack of courage shown by school officials in caving to a vocal minority of parents. Sometimes, choosing the right and doing what is right means doing what is unpopular without respect toward the political consequences and being a vocal advocate for our democracy. Part of the duties of citizenship mean that we pass a healthy respect for the outcomes of elections and our democratic institutions to our children, especially when we don't agree with those outcomes. It's what distinguishes us as a democracy and makes this nation great.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall, Voltaire's biographer, said in 1906 in a quote widely misattributed to Voltaire, "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Isn't the freedom we have to engage in difficult and controversial dialogue over political issues precisely what distinguishes our republic from other countries where citizens are denied this basic civil liberty? How far we've come from a point where we could vigorously disagree with each other and engage in snappy emotional repartee but still retain respect for our fellow citizens with whom we've disagreed. We could yet share a mutual pride, love, and respect in that great nation that gave us the freedom to do so...
Shame on you parents! Shame on you school officials for caving to them! How do your actions teach our children healthy respect for our democratic process and elections? How soon might our children within generations take up arms instead of the ballot or the pen or speak their minds when they disagree with each other?
Respectfully,
A Wyoming teacher
Green River, Wyo.
Showing posts with label letter to the editor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label letter to the editor. Show all posts
Letter to the Editor: An open letter to President Tom Buchanan
Editor:
An open letter to President Thomas Buchanan-
I am very disturbed about the fact that the University has chosen to name the new International Center after former Vice President Richard Cheney. I find this decision to be so inappropriate. I understand that money talks, but putting his name on such a place smacks of hypocrisy. He was not born here and he rarely lives here. I believe that he took up residency again only so that he could run with George Bush in that ill-fated election. A presidential and vice presidential candidate cannot be from the same state.
Doesn’t he already have enough places named after him? Why are so many people in Wyoming so proud of a person who has lied to us, has encouraged us to live in fear and has condoned the use of torture? He certainly has helped to bring down the reputation of the United States in the eyes of the world. He just doesn’t seem like a good role model for students.
I believe this to be one more smudge on the reputation of Wyoming; a reputation that is already quite sullied by past events. I am tired of defending Wyoming when I encounter people from “out there in the world.” Cheney, Matthew Shepard's death, the disparity in women and men’s income, to name but a few.
I am all for tolerance and diversity. But I don’t think that naming the building after him really speaks to tolerance and diversity. He appears to value neither.
I graduated from the University of Wyoming in the 1960s. There were certainly a lot of issues at that time. I thought we had come quite a way since. But when a situation such as this arises, I really have to wonder.
I hope that this decision will be rethought and that the Center will be named for someone really deserving of the honor; someone who has been successful in dealing in international matters and has enhanced our position in the world. We don’t have to be first or best but we do have to be principled. We haven’t been that for some time now. Dick Cheney certainly does not merit that honor.
Thank you for your attention to this letter.
Joan S. Borst
Sheridan, Wyo.
An open letter to President Thomas Buchanan-
I am very disturbed about the fact that the University has chosen to name the new International Center after former Vice President Richard Cheney. I find this decision to be so inappropriate. I understand that money talks, but putting his name on such a place smacks of hypocrisy. He was not born here and he rarely lives here. I believe that he took up residency again only so that he could run with George Bush in that ill-fated election. A presidential and vice presidential candidate cannot be from the same state.
Doesn’t he already have enough places named after him? Why are so many people in Wyoming so proud of a person who has lied to us, has encouraged us to live in fear and has condoned the use of torture? He certainly has helped to bring down the reputation of the United States in the eyes of the world. He just doesn’t seem like a good role model for students.
I believe this to be one more smudge on the reputation of Wyoming; a reputation that is already quite sullied by past events. I am tired of defending Wyoming when I encounter people from “out there in the world.” Cheney, Matthew Shepard's death, the disparity in women and men’s income, to name but a few.
I am all for tolerance and diversity. But I don’t think that naming the building after him really speaks to tolerance and diversity. He appears to value neither.
I graduated from the University of Wyoming in the 1960s. There were certainly a lot of issues at that time. I thought we had come quite a way since. But when a situation such as this arises, I really have to wonder.
I hope that this decision will be rethought and that the Center will be named for someone really deserving of the honor; someone who has been successful in dealing in international matters and has enhanced our position in the world. We don’t have to be first or best but we do have to be principled. We haven’t been that for some time now. Dick Cheney certainly does not merit that honor.
Thank you for your attention to this letter.
Joan S. Borst
Sheridan, Wyo.
Letter to the Editor: In defense of UW protest
Editor:
At the dedication of the Cheney International Center, former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson seemed to casually dismiss the 100 or so protesters present by saying, “It is easy to second-guess. It is easy to protest, takes no brains.”
I would like to remind Simpson that protest is what this great country is founded upon. Would he have said the same about those old white men who believed it was their “inalienable right” to speak their mind (with no brains) and oppose a tyrannical government? Was it easy for Martin Luther King to march on Washington or students at Kent State in Ohio to protest the Vietnam War?
I respectfully disagree with Simpson’s assessment. Every time someone stands up for what they believe in to those in power, they take a risk. Many of us who protested the Cheney International Center ceremony felt protesting was worth the possible risk of arrest or expulsion from UW.
It was incredible that someone who opposed Dick Cheney and his policies could stand next to someone who supported him without any violence or bloodshed. Sure, maybe today it is easier to protest in the United States, but in so many other countries this right is denied and severely suppressed by the government - we have only to look at recent events in China and Iran as examples.
What is “easy,” Senator Simpson, is for those in power to start unilateral wars, circumvent the Geneva Conventions, subvert the constitution, and authorize torture tactics that violate human rights treaties without any consequences. This is what takes “no brains.”
Dan DePeyer
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyo.
Editor's note: DePeyer is a University of Wyoming graduate student in the international studies program. He began the "UW Students Against the Cheney International Center" Facebook group and was instrumental in organizing the protest against the dedication Sept. 10.
At the dedication of the Cheney International Center, former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson seemed to casually dismiss the 100 or so protesters present by saying, “It is easy to second-guess. It is easy to protest, takes no brains.”
I would like to remind Simpson that protest is what this great country is founded upon. Would he have said the same about those old white men who believed it was their “inalienable right” to speak their mind (with no brains) and oppose a tyrannical government? Was it easy for Martin Luther King to march on Washington or students at Kent State in Ohio to protest the Vietnam War?
I respectfully disagree with Simpson’s assessment. Every time someone stands up for what they believe in to those in power, they take a risk. Many of us who protested the Cheney International Center ceremony felt protesting was worth the possible risk of arrest or expulsion from UW.
It was incredible that someone who opposed Dick Cheney and his policies could stand next to someone who supported him without any violence or bloodshed. Sure, maybe today it is easier to protest in the United States, but in so many other countries this right is denied and severely suppressed by the government - we have only to look at recent events in China and Iran as examples.
What is “easy,” Senator Simpson, is for those in power to start unilateral wars, circumvent the Geneva Conventions, subvert the constitution, and authorize torture tactics that violate human rights treaties without any consequences. This is what takes “no brains.”
Dan DePeyer
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyo.
Editor's note: DePeyer is a University of Wyoming graduate student in the international studies program. He began the "UW Students Against the Cheney International Center" Facebook group and was instrumental in organizing the protest against the dedication Sept. 10.
Letter to the Editor: An open letter to Obama
An open letter to President Barack Obama –
Mr. President, your goal of health care reform is in jeopardy and a change of strategy is required if that goal is to be saved. You have tried to work with Congress and that strategy has run its course.
If any health care legislation comes out of Congress, public option or not, it will simply add more people to the broken health care system we have now and increase the profits of the insurance industry without providing better care or cutting costs. I see nothing coming out of Congress that would start reducing health care costs, and that is key.
As you know, we have the most expensive health care system in the world, even though our national life expectancy is relatively low and our high infant mortality rate is a crime. Far too many people die because of hospital-acquired infections and malpractice. Large segments of our population receive little or no health care, primarily because of cost. Far too many families sink into bankruptcy because of health care debt.
Instead of letting health care policy be dictated by the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry and other players in the medical-Congressional-complex, pick a plan and stick with it. The Wyden-Bennett bill is an example of the kind of legislation that would address the fundamental problems in our health care system, namely incentives that drive up costs and drive down quality of care. Find a bill you can get behind, or create one of your own.
Once you find a bill, get the Democrats behind it and push it through. I know it’s like herding cats, but at least it is easier than herding Republicans. You ought to know by now Republicans won't accept any plan that actually addresses the fundamental problems with our health care system. Republicans refuse to be part of the solution.
I don't know if Democrats will unite behind you, but you have to try. If you succeed, health care will be on the right track, thousands of lives will be saved, and the Republicans will deservedly be out of power for at least 20 years. If you fail, you just might lose your next election and the country will sink deeper into the black hole of health care debt.
Robert Roten
Laramie, Wyo.
Mr. President, your goal of health care reform is in jeopardy and a change of strategy is required if that goal is to be saved. You have tried to work with Congress and that strategy has run its course.
If any health care legislation comes out of Congress, public option or not, it will simply add more people to the broken health care system we have now and increase the profits of the insurance industry without providing better care or cutting costs. I see nothing coming out of Congress that would start reducing health care costs, and that is key.
As you know, we have the most expensive health care system in the world, even though our national life expectancy is relatively low and our high infant mortality rate is a crime. Far too many people die because of hospital-acquired infections and malpractice. Large segments of our population receive little or no health care, primarily because of cost. Far too many families sink into bankruptcy because of health care debt.
Instead of letting health care policy be dictated by the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry and other players in the medical-Congressional-complex, pick a plan and stick with it. The Wyden-Bennett bill is an example of the kind of legislation that would address the fundamental problems in our health care system, namely incentives that drive up costs and drive down quality of care. Find a bill you can get behind, or create one of your own.
Once you find a bill, get the Democrats behind it and push it through. I know it’s like herding cats, but at least it is easier than herding Republicans. You ought to know by now Republicans won't accept any plan that actually addresses the fundamental problems with our health care system. Republicans refuse to be part of the solution.
I don't know if Democrats will unite behind you, but you have to try. If you succeed, health care will be on the right track, thousands of lives will be saved, and the Republicans will deservedly be out of power for at least 20 years. If you fail, you just might lose your next election and the country will sink deeper into the black hole of health care debt.
Robert Roten
Laramie, Wyo.
Letter to the Editor: Republicans scurry in the darkness
Editor:
When I was a kid we used to chase rats in an old barn down the street. We took rubber hoses and tried to hit them as they scurried though the dimly lit barn. Lousy visibility made it a fairly equal contest. All you could see was a flash of movement and perhaps an eye or black tail as they scurried to safety. Occasionally we got one, but that was rare. It was the thrill of the chase and not the dead rat that mattered.
In many ways, our American institutions are like old barns that makes perfect hiding places for rats. In the corporate darkness, where there is plenty of grain, anything can be stolen and tucked away. Republicans lie and steal because they can and the rewards are great. Greed is important of course, but the real Republican thrill lies in beating someone else to the punch and accumulating enough power for the next scam. Many Republicans are sociopaths without a conscience, so the Republican Party makes a perfect barn. Liars, bullies, and crooks are the norm and even an ideal.
The Republicans are barn rats, while the Democrats are white lab rats. The difference between a Rahm Emmanuel and a Dick Cheney is minimal. Both are paranoid megalomaniacs and sociopaths. You can always hear them scurrying in the darkness.
John Hanks
Laramie, Wyo.
When I was a kid we used to chase rats in an old barn down the street. We took rubber hoses and tried to hit them as they scurried though the dimly lit barn. Lousy visibility made it a fairly equal contest. All you could see was a flash of movement and perhaps an eye or black tail as they scurried to safety. Occasionally we got one, but that was rare. It was the thrill of the chase and not the dead rat that mattered.
In many ways, our American institutions are like old barns that makes perfect hiding places for rats. In the corporate darkness, where there is plenty of grain, anything can be stolen and tucked away. Republicans lie and steal because they can and the rewards are great. Greed is important of course, but the real Republican thrill lies in beating someone else to the punch and accumulating enough power for the next scam. Many Republicans are sociopaths without a conscience, so the Republican Party makes a perfect barn. Liars, bullies, and crooks are the norm and even an ideal.
The Republicans are barn rats, while the Democrats are white lab rats. The difference between a Rahm Emmanuel and a Dick Cheney is minimal. Both are paranoid megalomaniacs and sociopaths. You can always hear them scurrying in the darkness.
John Hanks
Laramie, Wyo.
Letter to the Editor: No ethics lesson in Buchanan's words
Dear Editor:
UW President Tom Buchanan’s perspective in the Laramie Boomerang (9/5) and the Casper Star-Tribune (9/6) about the naming of the Cheney International Center sought to provide a lesson in ethics. Quite the contrary. By defending the privileges of the wealthy and powerful while admonishing those who question the fairness and legitimacy of naming an international center after former Vice-president Dick Cheney, Buchanan’s perspective conveyed much more about his own political savvy than about ethics.
So that in the future the university's position on such matters will be clear, would it be possible to set the bar high enough so a prospective donor couldn't slither over it to have his or her name honored? Or are we left with the message that there is no lower limit – that UW would institutionalize the name of the devil if the donation and political payoff were sufficient?
Fred Vanden Heede
Laramie, Wyo.
UW President Tom Buchanan’s perspective in the Laramie Boomerang (9/5) and the Casper Star-Tribune (9/6) about the naming of the Cheney International Center sought to provide a lesson in ethics. Quite the contrary. By defending the privileges of the wealthy and powerful while admonishing those who question the fairness and legitimacy of naming an international center after former Vice-president Dick Cheney, Buchanan’s perspective conveyed much more about his own political savvy than about ethics.
So that in the future the university's position on such matters will be clear, would it be possible to set the bar high enough so a prospective donor couldn't slither over it to have his or her name honored? Or are we left with the message that there is no lower limit – that UW would institutionalize the name of the devil if the donation and political payoff were sufficient?
Fred Vanden Heede
Laramie, Wyo.
Letter to the Editor: Faculty should not keep silent on Cheney donation
Editor -
I am disappointed at the tone of Dr. Tom Buchanan's perspective piece on the Cheney International Center (CIC) (Casper Star-Tribune, Sept. 6). The suggestion that people objecting to the CIC lack tolerance is a cheap shot. The fact is, campus employees almost always acquiesce when the university recognizes controversial people and institutions. We've all sat through graduation ceremonies and watched as the university lent its credibility to doubtful characters in exchange for cold hard cash. We think: "It sucks. Hopefully students will benefit. Best stay silent."
Taking money from Dick Cheney is in another league. Mr. Cheney sanctioned the kidnapping, torture and murder of political prisoners. The university is promoting the legacy of someone who, more than any other in the recent past, damaged our country's reputation abroad. Now Mr. Cheney gets to damage that of the university.
Accepting donations from the powerful is a balancing act. Most times, benefits to the institution outweigh the disadvantages of associating with people or companies with a checkered past. But sometimes the disadvantages are too big. This was one of those times. It would have resulted in heat for Dr. Buchanan. Maybe he'd have lost his job. Then again, being a university president involves more than driving a desk. It is not unreasonable to expect the odd bit of moral courage from the university's administrators.
If the university is indeed extremely grateful to the Cheney family for its philanthropy, it is peculiar it has done little to promote the dedication of the center. The rumor is that it will be on Sept. 10th at 10:30 AM on Cheney Plaza. I invite students, faculty and staff to legally and peacefully protest this decision by the university.
Donal O'Toole
Professor, Dept. of Veterinary Science
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyo.
I am disappointed at the tone of Dr. Tom Buchanan's perspective piece on the Cheney International Center (CIC) (Casper Star-Tribune, Sept. 6). The suggestion that people objecting to the CIC lack tolerance is a cheap shot. The fact is, campus employees almost always acquiesce when the university recognizes controversial people and institutions. We've all sat through graduation ceremonies and watched as the university lent its credibility to doubtful characters in exchange for cold hard cash. We think: "It sucks. Hopefully students will benefit. Best stay silent."
Taking money from Dick Cheney is in another league. Mr. Cheney sanctioned the kidnapping, torture and murder of political prisoners. The university is promoting the legacy of someone who, more than any other in the recent past, damaged our country's reputation abroad. Now Mr. Cheney gets to damage that of the university.
Accepting donations from the powerful is a balancing act. Most times, benefits to the institution outweigh the disadvantages of associating with people or companies with a checkered past. But sometimes the disadvantages are too big. This was one of those times. It would have resulted in heat for Dr. Buchanan. Maybe he'd have lost his job. Then again, being a university president involves more than driving a desk. It is not unreasonable to expect the odd bit of moral courage from the university's administrators.
If the university is indeed extremely grateful to the Cheney family for its philanthropy, it is peculiar it has done little to promote the dedication of the center. The rumor is that it will be on Sept. 10th at 10:30 AM on Cheney Plaza. I invite students, faculty and staff to legally and peacefully protest this decision by the university.
Donal O'Toole
Professor, Dept. of Veterinary Science
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyo.
Letter to the Editor: Reminders of tyranny
In an academic (but not particularly intellectual) institution like the University of Wyoming, it might be a good idea to rename all of the University's buildings so that they can be used as talking points for future generations.
We could be the first university to turn its campus into a living monument to villainy. After naming a building after Cheney, we could name another after Nixon and then perhaps another after Grover Norquist (the Republican genius who decided to destroy America in order to save it).
Then, we could name our ROTC building after Benedict Arnold, who sold out his country because he didn't get a promotion. Certainly, President McKinley and William Randolph Hearst should be paired for blowing up the Battleship Maine as a pretext for the Spanish American War. L.B.J. should be remembered as the first of the American strong men to get us into a war solely in order to get rid of our huge inventory of weapons.
And, finally, Bush should be honored by renaming Old Main for the whole Bush crime family.
John Hanks
Laramie, Wyo.
We could be the first university to turn its campus into a living monument to villainy. After naming a building after Cheney, we could name another after Nixon and then perhaps another after Grover Norquist (the Republican genius who decided to destroy America in order to save it).
Then, we could name our ROTC building after Benedict Arnold, who sold out his country because he didn't get a promotion. Certainly, President McKinley and William Randolph Hearst should be paired for blowing up the Battleship Maine as a pretext for the Spanish American War. L.B.J. should be remembered as the first of the American strong men to get us into a war solely in order to get rid of our huge inventory of weapons.
And, finally, Bush should be honored by renaming Old Main for the whole Bush crime family.
John Hanks
Laramie, Wyo.
Letter to the Editor: When the TV is on, freedom of speech stops
TV has destroyed conversation everywhere, and yet it is only through talk that people learn much of anything. Talk, reading, writing, and thinking produce mature individuals capable of comparing and contrasting tastes and ideas. (Talking is most important). Common sense comes from common conversation about things like, "Is the govt. conning us again?", "Is Israel using us to fight its wars?" "Is Capitalism just a matter of making money?" etc. Folk wisdom comes from cliches like: "Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts." "Oh, they must be chatting us up to be suckered again." "All that glitters is not gold" etc. Walk in any room where a TV is on and see how quickly everyone sits down and stares at it, regardless of what is on.
TV is the filthy fish tank that we all have to swim in, whether we watch it or not. Political advertising has been abolished from television in countries that understand how inherently bogus it is. If we did that here, we could shorten our campaigns down to one or two months. If we made our media non-profit, we could kill the profit motive completely and deliver a fatal blow to the idiotic ratings popularity system. Instead of producing programs that appeal to the most ignorant, we should get more programming that meets its own standards of integrity.
Media is not an industry or a public service. It is a racket in which crooks make a fortune from pandering and feeding on human weakness. It is pollution, so why should we ever give it a tip. The more lies the creeps broadcast, the more bribes and rackets they produce. Now American ignorance and weakness is despised all over the world because Americans have allowed themselves to be suckered by idiotic TV.
John Hanks
Laramie, Wyo.
TV is the filthy fish tank that we all have to swim in, whether we watch it or not. Political advertising has been abolished from television in countries that understand how inherently bogus it is. If we did that here, we could shorten our campaigns down to one or two months. If we made our media non-profit, we could kill the profit motive completely and deliver a fatal blow to the idiotic ratings popularity system. Instead of producing programs that appeal to the most ignorant, we should get more programming that meets its own standards of integrity.
Media is not an industry or a public service. It is a racket in which crooks make a fortune from pandering and feeding on human weakness. It is pollution, so why should we ever give it a tip. The more lies the creeps broadcast, the more bribes and rackets they produce. Now American ignorance and weakness is despised all over the world because Americans have allowed themselves to be suckered by idiotic TV.
John Hanks
Laramie, Wyo.
Letter to the Editor: Nuclear weapons still pose a threat
Editor:
When the atomic bomb came on the scene, we immediately gave the worst invention ever conceived to a bunch of sociopaths including the Dulles brothers in America and Stalin in Russia. Even more sociopaths, including Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea have the bomb now. All we need is a suicidal sociopath like Hitler to finally bring the curtain down. I thought Bush, Cheney, Putin or Israel might win the suicidal sociopath race this time.
It takes between 50 to 100 nuclear bursts to kick off a nuclear Winter (50 degrees below zero for 100 years). Voila! At last a nuclear exchange will have solved all our resources, population, and economic problems. When has mankind ever seriously dealt with any sociopath without substituting one for another. The truth is that we just love our liars, bullies, and crooks.
When nukes arrived on the scene, no thinking person ever thought we would last another sixty years. So far, nothing less than a miracle has occurred. We are still here today largely due to sheer dumb luck.
John Hanks
Laramie, Wyo.
When the atomic bomb came on the scene, we immediately gave the worst invention ever conceived to a bunch of sociopaths including the Dulles brothers in America and Stalin in Russia. Even more sociopaths, including Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea have the bomb now. All we need is a suicidal sociopath like Hitler to finally bring the curtain down. I thought Bush, Cheney, Putin or Israel might win the suicidal sociopath race this time.
It takes between 50 to 100 nuclear bursts to kick off a nuclear Winter (50 degrees below zero for 100 years). Voila! At last a nuclear exchange will have solved all our resources, population, and economic problems. When has mankind ever seriously dealt with any sociopath without substituting one for another. The truth is that we just love our liars, bullies, and crooks.
When nukes arrived on the scene, no thinking person ever thought we would last another sixty years. So far, nothing less than a miracle has occurred. We are still here today largely due to sheer dumb luck.
John Hanks
Laramie, Wyo.
