Re: Justice for Jason
Dear editor,
I am sympathetic to everything that happened two years ago to Jason and the other two men, but it is hard for me to sit here and feel good about all the people who “braved the cold” in support of Jason. I have been seeing and hearing opinions on the situation for two years now, and the majority of people, protesting or not, don’t even know the real story.
I know what happened and it might have been a race issue in the end, but that does not justify stabbing two different people five to seven times EACH. Those two kids are lucky to be alive, and there is a point where self defense ends. Also, Jason had a knife that he used for wiring things. Why would you bring out your knife with you when going to pay for a pizza at such late hours, knowing there are two kids out there who you just had a verbal confrontation with?
I’m not on either side. It just bothers me that people are so quick to jump to the aid of someone in a race issue without even looking at pieces of the case that are so illogical.
Sincerely,
Dan Mangan
Thursday, February 4, 2010
To Daily Collegian
Re: UMass bonding time
Dear editor,
Apparently people are asking for ideas to unify the campus. In my opinion sports is the number one way bring people together. Yeah skating on the pond would be fun, but how many people would be able to skate? It would most likely end up in a fight for the ice.
I would love nothing more than to get pumped on a Wednesday or Friday night and go cheer on the basketball team, but how can I have respect for myself cheering for a team that lost to the University of Central Florida by seventeen points.
Here’s an idea: let’s keep a coach here long enough to build the program back up. Every time we get on the brink of starting to make progress our coach leaves. Let’s get some players that will give us some incentive to cheer for them. From what I have seen the hockey games are the only evidence of school spirit here, and that is true for one reason only: they contend.
Sincerely,
Dan Mangan
Dear editor,
Apparently people are asking for ideas to unify the campus. In my opinion sports is the number one way bring people together. Yeah skating on the pond would be fun, but how many people would be able to skate? It would most likely end up in a fight for the ice.
I would love nothing more than to get pumped on a Wednesday or Friday night and go cheer on the basketball team, but how can I have respect for myself cheering for a team that lost to the University of Central Florida by seventeen points.
Here’s an idea: let’s keep a coach here long enough to build the program back up. Every time we get on the brink of starting to make progress our coach leaves. Let’s get some players that will give us some incentive to cheer for them. From what I have seen the hockey games are the only evidence of school spirit here, and that is true for one reason only: they contend.
Sincerely,
Dan Mangan
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Letters To The Editor
To the Sports Editor:
Re “Panel Calls for Treatment in Sex Ambiguity Cases,” Jan. 21: Scrutinizing female athletes based on their looks to scan for potential masculinizing disorders is demeaning and sends a harmful message to all women.
Female athletes are role models for those who wish to live a healthier lifestyle and vow to exercise as a result. They also stand for the mental toughness of women in being able to train and transform their bodies. Female athletes should not be exposed to such negative scrutiny because of their ability to prepare their bodies for competition.
If the International Olympic Committee is truly concerned about medical disorders, then testing should be required for all female athletes to scan for multiple types of disorders and not just masculinizing disorders.
Amy Welch Brighton, Mass.
This letter to the editor is from the NY Times on January 30th. It is a good example of responding to an article. First of all it is very well written: short summarizing her opinion on the article and then ending with a possible solution. The main reason I like it though is because this issue raises so many questions, it is a true dilemma. I personally understand what she is saying about the idea that some of these things could be demeaning to women; but I also think that it is almost similar to testing for steroids. If it is something that is going to make them perform better than other women, then it is a performance enhancer.
To the Editor:
Bob Herbert’s Jan. 30 column about Howard Zinn, “A Radical Treasure,” is a wonderful tribute to a great man. We never met Mr. Zinn except through his books and films. Yet his death left us with a profound sadness.
There aren’t many people who speak truth to power and do so with as much grace, intelligence and compassion as Mr. Zinn. His “People’s History of the United States” should be read by all Americans. It’s our failure to understand and take responsibility for our arrogance that has led us into so many military mistakes and economic calamities. Thank you, Bob Herbert, for reminding us of what this world lost when this great man died.
Larry Barkan
Carol Barkan
Tempe, Ariz., Jan. 30, 2010
I’d call this letter a tribute letter; almost a thank you to Bob Herbert and mostly Howard Zinn. As much as I respect and love the work of Howard Zinn I like to read different kinds of opinions in the Letters to the editor; things that raise question and spark conversations. I guess it’s tolerable because of the impact Howard Zinn had, but there were so many Letters to the editor about Zinn.
Re “Panel Calls for Treatment in Sex Ambiguity Cases,” Jan. 21: Scrutinizing female athletes based on their looks to scan for potential masculinizing disorders is demeaning and sends a harmful message to all women.
Female athletes are role models for those who wish to live a healthier lifestyle and vow to exercise as a result. They also stand for the mental toughness of women in being able to train and transform their bodies. Female athletes should not be exposed to such negative scrutiny because of their ability to prepare their bodies for competition.
If the International Olympic Committee is truly concerned about medical disorders, then testing should be required for all female athletes to scan for multiple types of disorders and not just masculinizing disorders.
Amy Welch Brighton, Mass.
This letter to the editor is from the NY Times on January 30th. It is a good example of responding to an article. First of all it is very well written: short summarizing her opinion on the article and then ending with a possible solution. The main reason I like it though is because this issue raises so many questions, it is a true dilemma. I personally understand what she is saying about the idea that some of these things could be demeaning to women; but I also think that it is almost similar to testing for steroids. If it is something that is going to make them perform better than other women, then it is a performance enhancer.
To the Editor:
Bob Herbert’s Jan. 30 column about Howard Zinn, “A Radical Treasure,” is a wonderful tribute to a great man. We never met Mr. Zinn except through his books and films. Yet his death left us with a profound sadness.
There aren’t many people who speak truth to power and do so with as much grace, intelligence and compassion as Mr. Zinn. His “People’s History of the United States” should be read by all Americans. It’s our failure to understand and take responsibility for our arrogance that has led us into so many military mistakes and economic calamities. Thank you, Bob Herbert, for reminding us of what this world lost when this great man died.
Larry Barkan
Carol Barkan
Tempe, Ariz., Jan. 30, 2010
I’d call this letter a tribute letter; almost a thank you to Bob Herbert and mostly Howard Zinn. As much as I respect and love the work of Howard Zinn I like to read different kinds of opinions in the Letters to the editor; things that raise question and spark conversations. I guess it’s tolerable because of the impact Howard Zinn had, but there were so many Letters to the editor about Zinn.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Journalism Today
“Journalists stand in a paternalistic relationship to readers: They guide them rather than engage them in conversation. They decide on the legitimate and valuable topics for the agenda based on the estimation of the public’s need to know, but don’t see the necessity for listening to the public.”
I don’t think the journalist can tell the public what their news is anymore. The public can find what they want to read anywhere. They do guide readers more than engage in conversation though. Even if readers are engaging in conversation it is after they have read an above article on the internet.
“Making news became commercially viable through the selling of audiences to advertisers, instead of newspapers to partisan audiences…The new centrality of advertising income also meant that owners and editors were compelled to abandon controversial, partisan material from their reports, and instead aimed to please as many advertisers ad consumers as they possibly could by printing ostensibly “neutral” content and proclaiming their political independence.”
I think this is very true and very bad for newspapers. Advertisers are the ones controlling everything. The advertisers pay for ads in newspapers that the most people are going to read, and the newspapers think that most people are going to read a newspaper that doesn’t have an opinion. I think news needs an opinion. News needs to question things. Some is always going to be shocked or angry over a certain news view and that’s the way it should be. The quality of the news is hurt by the neutral viewpoint.
I don’t think the journalist can tell the public what their news is anymore. The public can find what they want to read anywhere. They do guide readers more than engage in conversation though. Even if readers are engaging in conversation it is after they have read an above article on the internet.
“Making news became commercially viable through the selling of audiences to advertisers, instead of newspapers to partisan audiences…The new centrality of advertising income also meant that owners and editors were compelled to abandon controversial, partisan material from their reports, and instead aimed to please as many advertisers ad consumers as they possibly could by printing ostensibly “neutral” content and proclaiming their political independence.”
I think this is very true and very bad for newspapers. Advertisers are the ones controlling everything. The advertisers pay for ads in newspapers that the most people are going to read, and the newspapers think that most people are going to read a newspaper that doesn’t have an opinion. I think news needs an opinion. News needs to question things. Some is always going to be shocked or angry over a certain news view and that’s the way it should be. The quality of the news is hurt by the neutral viewpoint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)