Letter: Cigar serves as 'liberal newsletter'
Issue date: 2/16/06 Section: Editorial/Opinion
02/16/06 - To the Cigar,
I've been reading the paper for years, and I've finally had enough. It was last week when I was most recently disgusted, due mostly to smarmy entertainment writers and the incessant complaining of proud conservative Nathaniel Nelson, who plays a pivotal role in the relentless puppet show of political disputes, which stain the pages of our what-should-be-fun-and-informative school newspaper, day after day, week after week, and so forth (I'm not excluding liberals from the aforesaid; often, I feel, they are worse than conservatives, but I digress). The point is, the material is falling off the face of the earth, and I speak for many when I say, "I'm sick of it."
The futile bi-partisan political battle on this campus is intolerable. I read in the conservative newsletter, so tactlessly advertised with the whole "Coming Out Conservative" (COC, think about it) campaign thing, that I shouldn't be caught dead in the Union coffeehouse if I wanted people to respect my more conservative stances. What!
But why does our paper have to stoop down to the same level and serve as the "liberal newsletter"? Why is it important to publish Stacey Carceno, who asked the Republicans why they support a particular policy? They do. And truth be told, she won't be doing a single thing about that fact by asking snobby rhetorical questions, and you certainly won't be doing anything about that fact by acting just like conservative Christians and trying to impose these views on people by publishing such articles and letters in the Cigar. You are only fueling the fire.
We keep forgetting that true arguments are supposed to enlighten, not destroy, oppress, discriminate or incriminate. The nature of these political arguments is futile and fills me with dark images of the future. I'm serious. If these so called "top of the food chain" academics share an opinion that all of us should adopt - and as is Stacey's opinion: opinions we ought to flock to like dumb lambs, simply because such intelligent men and women can't be wrong - I think we're missing the point of our educators and of the idea of freedom in general. And if our educators feel like Stacey feels, they betray us. Moving on: Nathaniel Nelson.
Why are we still publishing his ranting? He is a scared, tired and severely misled person who feels oppressed by a professor who tried to teach him a good lesson, allowed him to explore his interests, gave him an A and just so happened to be gay. Nathaniel is only one example of how humanity started contorting the great words of a great man, Jesus of Nazareth, the moment they left his lips, for reasons of greed, power and control. Shame on us. And I pity Nathaniel, as should you. Onward, to things less grave.
As far as entertainment, I have two bones to pick. 1. I think that publishing a review about a movie that the writer has never seen is absurd. Good. Your entertainment writers know how to synopsize movies. Who cares? 2. Instead of publishing reviews for movies that came out months ago, publish on cinematic, theatrical, and musical events that we may not know about and that may be slightly more relevant than the Chronicles of Narnia. Also, I read the article in "The Cosmopolitan" about girls who "hide" their boyfriends. That kind of article insults my intelligence. And if I'd wanted to hear about something so blatantly sexist, I'd have gone and bought an issue of Cosmo or enrolled in a women's studies class or something. Come on.
Before I conclude, allow me to say that I am in no means anti-Cigar. I believe the newspaper could be a great way for people, especially those who aspire toward careers in journalism, to learn how to write effectively and within such media as newspapers. But when I read the Cigar, I feel like I'm reading a religious tract for liberalism. Could it hurt to publish more articles that force us to think about ourselves and acknowledge another point of view while still entertaining us? Is "Stuff" the only column that even vaguely attempts this? I just don't understand.
David W. Coppola
I've been reading the paper for years, and I've finally had enough. It was last week when I was most recently disgusted, due mostly to smarmy entertainment writers and the incessant complaining of proud conservative Nathaniel Nelson, who plays a pivotal role in the relentless puppet show of political disputes, which stain the pages of our what-should-be-fun-and-informative school newspaper, day after day, week after week, and so forth (I'm not excluding liberals from the aforesaid; often, I feel, they are worse than conservatives, but I digress). The point is, the material is falling off the face of the earth, and I speak for many when I say, "I'm sick of it."
The futile bi-partisan political battle on this campus is intolerable. I read in the conservative newsletter, so tactlessly advertised with the whole "Coming Out Conservative" (COC, think about it) campaign thing, that I shouldn't be caught dead in the Union coffeehouse if I wanted people to respect my more conservative stances. What!
But why does our paper have to stoop down to the same level and serve as the "liberal newsletter"? Why is it important to publish Stacey Carceno, who asked the Republicans why they support a particular policy? They do. And truth be told, she won't be doing a single thing about that fact by asking snobby rhetorical questions, and you certainly won't be doing anything about that fact by acting just like conservative Christians and trying to impose these views on people by publishing such articles and letters in the Cigar. You are only fueling the fire.
We keep forgetting that true arguments are supposed to enlighten, not destroy, oppress, discriminate or incriminate. The nature of these political arguments is futile and fills me with dark images of the future. I'm serious. If these so called "top of the food chain" academics share an opinion that all of us should adopt - and as is Stacey's opinion: opinions we ought to flock to like dumb lambs, simply because such intelligent men and women can't be wrong - I think we're missing the point of our educators and of the idea of freedom in general. And if our educators feel like Stacey feels, they betray us. Moving on: Nathaniel Nelson.
Why are we still publishing his ranting? He is a scared, tired and severely misled person who feels oppressed by a professor who tried to teach him a good lesson, allowed him to explore his interests, gave him an A and just so happened to be gay. Nathaniel is only one example of how humanity started contorting the great words of a great man, Jesus of Nazareth, the moment they left his lips, for reasons of greed, power and control. Shame on us. And I pity Nathaniel, as should you. Onward, to things less grave.
As far as entertainment, I have two bones to pick. 1. I think that publishing a review about a movie that the writer has never seen is absurd. Good. Your entertainment writers know how to synopsize movies. Who cares? 2. Instead of publishing reviews for movies that came out months ago, publish on cinematic, theatrical, and musical events that we may not know about and that may be slightly more relevant than the Chronicles of Narnia. Also, I read the article in "The Cosmopolitan" about girls who "hide" their boyfriends. That kind of article insults my intelligence. And if I'd wanted to hear about something so blatantly sexist, I'd have gone and bought an issue of Cosmo or enrolled in a women's studies class or something. Come on.
Before I conclude, allow me to say that I am in no means anti-Cigar. I believe the newspaper could be a great way for people, especially those who aspire toward careers in journalism, to learn how to write effectively and within such media as newspapers. But when I read the Cigar, I feel like I'm reading a religious tract for liberalism. Could it hurt to publish more articles that force us to think about ourselves and acknowledge another point of view while still entertaining us? Is "Stuff" the only column that even vaguely attempts this? I just don't understand.
David W. Coppola
