Log in

No account? Create an account
08 July 2004 @ 12:49 am
Another knuckle-dragger crawls out from under its red, white, and blue rock  
Since when does writing a harmless letter in which you calmly state opposition to the war mean that you're a coward and communist who would hightail it to Canada if the draft were reinstated? 1950 called - it wants its false-dichotomy-driven paranoia and general asshattery back. And last I checked, you can feel that, as sentient human beings, troops deserve such necessities as proper training and equipment and medical treatment (an opinion that is basically, oh gee, I don't know, supporting the troops) without agreeing with the orders they have to carry out. The marriage analogy put forth in that letter is not the same thing at all.

This reminds me of the idiotic letter I read in USA Today a couple of months back in which some troglodyte claimed that the Abu Ghraib abuse should not have been reported because it was undermining the war effort. (Yeah, screw all those towelheads, right? They must all have been in al-Qaida anyway! USA! USA!!111!!) And that reminds me of a Daily Show that facetiously reported that the troops were against the troops because soldiers had blown the whistle on said abuse. That show came out before the letter in question, and when I read said letter, I was befuddled that someone could actually be that much of a zealot. If you feel that the war in Iraq and/or our continued presence there is justified, that's one thing, but why go to such extreme lengths to attack people just for disagreeing with you? Sure, I like to insult the nutbrains because of their flagrant displays of idiocy, but you don't see me going around calling every single pro-war person a bloodthirsty racist pig just because they think we have good reason to continue fighting.
Current Mood: disgusted
yuda on July 7th, 2004 10:38 pm (UTC)
If I were in a snarkier mood, I'd write a letter to the Collegian saying something like:

"Perhaps the fact that Mr. Swiderski has only made it to the Harrisburg campus can be explained by his clear lack of logical reasoning ability."

But I'm not in the mood. Pity, that.
The Heavy Metal Matador: frylockrydain on July 7th, 2004 10:58 pm (UTC)
Seriously...I like that. ;) *snerk*
Skurtchasorskurtchasor on July 8th, 2004 07:15 am (UTC)
I'll second that, with an Around-the-World-and-Back Snap! My response would have been a little more pointed, something along the lines of this:

It disturbs me to see the flagrant prejudice in Mr. Swiderski's letter. Aside from his claims that anyone against the draft must be a coward and a communist, he makes the completely unfounded assumptions that Mr. Leatherman has benefitted from government loans but will flee to Canada if the draft is reinstated. His letter is rife with hypotheticals and sensationalism, so it comes as no surprise that he is so vehemently pro-war.

My only question is this: if our country is still "under attack by radical Islamists," why is somebody as brave and patriotic as Mr. Swiderski sitting in college? Shouldn't he still be in the Army?
sinistarfithsinistarfith on July 8th, 2004 10:02 am (UTC)
There's something funny going on in the accounting department.

All three of the letters to the editor are from accounting majors:
"Slot machines good for state's economy" - Brian Henry, junior - accounting
"'Fahrenheit' far from being documentary" - Jason Warner, senior - accounting
"Troops, country both need public support" - Dave Swiderski, senior - accounting
radhardened on July 8th, 2004 10:17 am (UTC)
the marriage analogy
The marriage analogy put forth in that letter is not the same thing at all.
I think the marriage analogy is similar in that the writer is positing a false dichotomy: either you love your wife and you love marriage or you hate both. I think it's perfectly possible to love your wife and hate the institution of marriage or to hate your wife but love the institution of marriage.
setupweaselsetupweasel on July 11th, 2004 09:02 am (UTC)