In column on President Carter, I failed to convey my perspective
The response to my column on former President Jimmy Carter’s pronouncement that opposition to President Barack Obama is racist reminded me of improvements I can make in my writing style. Clearly, I failed to effectively convey my perspective.
Let me first say that I meant no disrespect to Carter. In hindsight, my strongly worded opener surely overshadowed this intention. My aim was to express my disappointment that such a learned man would use such methods of argument that hurt rather than advance a righteous cause.
In his memoirs, “True Compass,” the late Senator Edward Kennedy revealed an interesting insight about the former president. Kennedy noted that at times, Carter “abandoned optimism in the face of adversity and [gave] vent to sentiments ... of futile stridency.” As Obama’s health care reform efforts have met stiff opposition, Carter’s rhetorical tendency of the seventies seems to have repeated itself last week.
Carter combined two rhetorical techniques: arguing from an absolute and equivocation. The message he conveyed began with the absolute truth that racism is bad. Only a fool would argue differently. Then, he states that opposition to Obama is based on racism. By labeling the “overwhelming portion” of the opposition to Obama as fueled by race, Carter implies that if one disagrees with Obama, then this person is a racist. This kind of blanket statement threatens to add a disingenuous tone to the debate by marginalizing those that vocalize legitimate concerns with Obama’s policies.
Are there those who oppose Obama due to his simply because of race? Absolutely. And these individuals should be admonished for the hateful actions and speech they promote. But it is highly unlikely that the overwhelming majority of those who have a different opinion on the potential structure of our nation’s health system are simply racist.
As a moderate who volunteered for and supported Obama before he became the primary front runner, I stand by my opinion that Carter should sit in quiet reflection before he further damages the plans of Obama with well meaning but destructive rhetoric. It would be tragic if Americans lose their chance for meaningful and equal health care reform by such divisive tactics. Bullying does not — and should not — work in a democracy.
Joe Wenner Moderate columnist, The Eagle
KPU should not have invited Meghan McCain to this campus
I am very disappointed in the Kennedy Political Union’s decision to bring Meghan McCain as a guest speaker.
First, let me be clear: this has nothing to do with her political ideology. Left, right and center, there are plenty of people out there whose views are at once substantive and interesting. Similarly, there are people in Washington who are neither substantive nor interesting, but who make sense to have as guest speakers (See: Gregory, David). Meghan McCain has neither substance nor import. Rather, she is the product of a nepotistic society that values the bratty daughters of failed presidential candidates more than serious policy wonks.
McCain’s views are as important as Luke Russert’s. That is to say, they are not important. We have serious issues to deal with in this country. KPU would better serve the university by bringing in serious people, not someone whose bio reads: “I am concerned about the environment. I love to wear black. I think government is best when it stays out of people’s lives and business as much as possible. I love punk rock. I believe in a strong national defense. I have a tattoo.”
Nick Kilstein Senior, SPA/SIS
“Booming Bass” disrupts classes
On Friday, Sept. 25, at around 4:00 p.m., my English class was disrupted by some very loud music blasting from an event on the main quad. Although I have no idea what this event was, since it was neither listed on AU's Web site calendar or the Today@AU e-mail, it was clear from the presence of a number of tables with food, and a disc jockey who was fully set up, that it was some kind of official event taking place. The DJ had his speakers blasting very loudly and in the direction of the School of International Service building, where my English class meets on the second floor. Even when we closed the windows to our classroom, the booming sound of the bass still blasted right inside to our group discussion.
Although the rest of my class tolerated the noise, I am, and always have been, very sensitive to sound, particularly to lower sounds like that booming bass, which felt to me like someone was hitting my brain with one of those whack-a-mole hammers. Needless to say, it was all but impossible for me to continue focusing on our class discussion. Upon seeing how much difficulty I was having maintaining my focus in class, my professor allowed me to try to negotiate with the folks at the event about the noise. I was unable to find anyone who was "in charge," and ultimately spoke with the DJ, who couldn't stop the music completely due to his contract, but was willing to turn down the bass a bit.
I am appalled that AU would approve such a loud event to take place during class time. AU should be well aware that daytime classes take place until 4:50 p.m., and even if it is a Friday afternoon, students like me still want to get the most out of our classes. Although I recognize the importance of holding events in order to support the social aspect of university life, it is outrageous that such a disruptive event would be permitted on the quad when classes are still taking place. Like all other undergraduates here, I pay $1 for every 43 seconds of time that I spend in class, and I don't spend that kind of money to be forced to listen to loud, booming music that prevents me from engaging fully in my academic classes.
I ask that whoever at AU is in charge of approving these kinds of events consider how they affect the academic environment of students before they give them the rubber stamp.
Douglas Bell Freshman, College of Arts and Sciences
