Government is not persecuting war protesters

This is written in response to Bob Moser’s Friday guest column which he wrote in response to Rema Ina’s Thursday column. He claims that because individuals and some businesses “persecute” many who express anti-war sentiments, that we do not have free speech in the United States. He apparently fails to understand that freedom of speech is a right for our protection against government persecutions. Miss Ina was right on target with her column when she stated that “Speaking in a public forum comes with risks,” but please note that, because of our right to free speech, government persecution is not one of the risks.

Ron Harris

Dept. Math/Stat

George Bush is repeating his dad’s mistakes

Once upon a time, there was a president named George Bush. He invaded Iraq, and his popularity ratings soared. But when the war was over, his “energy plan” was a multibillion-dollar contribution to his cronies, who owned oil-, coal- and gas-producing companies. As the economy faltered, his only response was tax giveaways to America’s wealthiest citizens. And despite the advantages of incumbency, he was beaten for re-election.

Isn’t it funny how history repeats itself?

Today, another President Bush is trying to ram a tax giveaway for the rich through Congress and he doesn’t care if he runs over his own party’s lawmakers in the process. According to the OMB, 65 percent of the benefits from his proposed tax cuts will go to the richest 10 percent of Americans. If you are a single working person who doesn’t own stock and doesn’t have kids, your benefit is likely to be a big fat zero. For the majority of Americans, the benefit will be less than $100. For the wealthiest Americans, the benefit would be over $20,000.

According to economists with the Congressional Budget Office, this plan will not stimulate our economy, but it will send deficits soaring through the roof, driving up interest rates. I am appalled to see Bush exploiting the patriotism of loyal Americans over the invasion of Iraq, while stabbing them in the back economically. Okay, now that we’ve deposed of Saddam, how are we going to pay for tuition rates that will soon make college an option only for the rich?

Earl M. Britt


Landlords take advantage of elderly tenants

Three Bowling Green University students and myself are doing a community action project for American Culture Studies 250. Due to a personal experience in my family, we decided to acknowledge the issue of pet security deposits in leased housing for the elderly. These specialized apartments are for the senior citizens on fixed income who cannot afford the high rates of a house or most other apartments, but are still well enough to live on their own.

After researching apartments on the Internet, we found that some pet security deposits were as much as $200, even for a fish, because the tank might leak and cause water damage. For our action, we went to several leased housing apartment buildings and surveyed the residents to get their response to the pet security deposit. It turned out that when we asked whether or not they thought the amount was too high or too low, they had no opinion. Most of the residents had no idea how much they should be charged for a pet. Then we went to talk to the management to try to persuade them to lower their pet price, or at least make an installment plan. We explained how the elderly can benefit from the companionship of a pet, and how pets can even lower blood pressure, therefore contributing to longer life. The managers responded by complaining about the negative aspects that may come along with owning a pet, like carpet damage and smell. Some, however, would not even speak with us.

Obviously, the landlords know they are taking advantage of elderly pet owners and are making enough profit off of them that they do not want to change their policy. The four of us could not make an impact, but if more people stand up to these money- hungry landlords, maybe they would actually consider the issue.

Danielle Hager and ACS 250


Take action against abortion

I find a great deal of hypocrisy in the opinions of those who state that, although they do not condone abortion, they believe in the freedom to carry out such a travesty. Such an opinion brings to mind the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese.

Thirty-eight people watched the brutal stabbing of Kitty on an open avenue in Queens. One of these fine, upstanding citizens bothered to notify the police, but only after Kitty had died. Certainly none of these thirty-eight people condoned murder, but their inaction showed their complete disregard for her life.

Kitty Genovese died because no one on the street that day cared enough to stand up for her. Over 3500 unborn children are murdered every day in the United States because people don’t care enough to take an active stance against their deaths. Take action. Do not allow this senseless violence to continue. Everyone has the right to live, and as good upstanding citizens, we have the responsibility to protect those who can not protect themselves.

Meghan Durbak