OPINION & EDITORIAL
Verstandig in fantasy land
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Letters to the Editor (October 22, 2004)
- VerStandig inflammatory towards gay advocates (December 3, 2004)
- NRA responsible for gun industry's problems (May 6, 2003)
- Elizabeth Waters dormitory not sexist (March 17, 2005)
- Letter to editor policy fatally flawed (March 23, 2006)
by Letters to the Editor
Friday, October 15, 2004
After reading, "Kerry reveals very little … ", by Mac VerStandig in the Badger Herald, I was compelled to respond. At first I was not sure where to begin, I saw so many comments that seemed to completely side-step the issue at hand.
VerStandig seems to imply that it is Kerry's lack of moral convictions and ideological consistencies that make him an ill-suited candidate for President. I will not discuss the validity of this statement, but this is to say that a person having strong moral convictions and ideological consistency would be perfectly suited to be President. I fully agree that these are important characteristics for a leader, but they are not good in and of themselves. Consider Hitler, he had both strong moral convictions and ideological consistency, but the American people would not want a leader known for mass censorship, the slaughtering of many for "racial impurities" and a cruel autocratic regime.
For more proof that Kerry is an incapable leader, VerStandig quotes George Pataki, the Republican Gov. of New York, "The President was able to point out Senator Kerry's … record in the Senate, voting to weaken our military, slash our intelligence, raise our taxes". This is not a valid source; it is a biased opinion that cannot be taken as credible evidence. After the first debate, Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said, "I think Bush came out the definite winner tonight and ultimately the American people will see that." According to every legitimate source, Bush lost the debate and the American people saw that, not what a former Republican mayor's bias saw. Using Pataki as a credible source is as absurd as believing Giuliani's statement about the first debate.
VerStandig next points to a supposedly "baffling claim" of Kerry's referring to his opinions on the Patriot Act, in which Kerry said he hadn't changed positions on the Patriot Act and had always supported it, but had said in an interview that the Patriot Act was a "blind spot in the American justice system". It is true Kerry said this, however, this quote is taken out of context. Kerry states that there must be a review system that makes sure that civil liberties are protected and there is no such system in the Patriot Act. This does not mean he is against the act, but rather believes it needs to be reformed.
However, neither of those examples irritated me as much as VerStandig's charge that the debate questions were too focused on the President's mistakes. It is very important to question both candidates about the way they will run the country. The President is the incumbent and is therefore directly responsible for the last four years. The President led us into a war because of Iraq's WMDs, Iraq's connection with al Qaeda and its lack of cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. Since two of the three have hence been proven false — Iraq's connection with Al Qaeda by a bipartisan panel, and Iraq's WMD claim by WMD searcher, Charles Duelfer — it is only reasonable that someone would question his actions.
In short, VerStandig's argument is less based in reality than in a fantasy land; a fantasy land much like the one that Bush seems to live in, in which Iraq is a place of democracy, the United States is safer country and the American people stand 100 percent behind him. Well I guess we will have to wait until November for that one.
Dimitri Syrkin-Nikolau (dasyrkinniko@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in history.
Anonymous (October 15, 2004 @ 9:20am):
Excellent response! You provide good, detailed logic to your points unlike the original article which was merely spin.
Anonymous (October 15, 2004 @ 10:19am):
Verstandig is in fantasy land - he's in Madison! Mac, thanks for injecting a little bit of the real world for us every now and then.
Anonymous (October 15, 2004 @ 10:26am):
Alex: "10 square miles surrounded by reality."
Contestant: "Alex, what is Madison, WI"
Alex: "Correct"
Anonymous (October 15, 2004 @ 11:20am):
Alex: "Labeling someone as a liberal or other degrating title because what they say is true and you cannot actually provide a reasonable response."
Contestant: "Alex, what is the Repubilcan answer to everything?"
Alex: "Correct."
Anonymous (October 15, 2004 @ 11:22am):
That last response is just way too outside of the mainstream.
Anonymous (October 15, 2004 @ 12:21pm):
And it spelled Republican as "Repubilcan"
Anonymous (October 15, 2004 @ 1:03pm):
That whole "Madison is 10 square miles surrounded by reality" quote is from the late 60's. Is 35+ year old quote the best comeback you can think of? Apparently you cannot refute any of the FACTS that Dimitri has written in his letter.
Anonymous (October 15, 2004 @ 1:05pm):
That whole "Madison is 10 square miles surrounded by reality" quote is from a t-shirt from the late 60's/early 70's. Is a 35+ year old quote from a t-shirt really the best comeback you can think of? Apparently you cannot refute any of the FACTS that Dimitri has written in his letter.
Anonymous (October 15, 2004 @ 4:47pm):
I didn't even give Dmitri's article much critical thought. But now that you ask: "Did Kerry apologize to the American people for sending troops into Iraq on the premise that Hussein had WMD?" Kerry had access to the same intelligence as Bush, and yet he is somehow inculpable on this issue? Weird...maybe the liberal bias in the media has something to do with the fact that he hasn't been hit harder on this issue.
True - Pataki and Giuliani are conservatives, but I don't think that discredits their observations of Kerry's voting record. Am I to believe that Edwards' criticism of the current administration is not legit because he sits on the other side of the fence on most issues?
Simply being a (wo)man of conviction doesn't make one fit to be President. But I feel that anyone that doesn't fit this criteria, disqualifies him/herself from the Presidency. Kerry pays more attention to polls than any politician I know...the reason?: it helps him define his political views on any given day.
Bush is not Hitler: stop making the subtle inference; it's unoriginal and unfounded.
Regarding the Patriot Act - Kerry led the charge (publicly) to allow the Patriot Act to sunset. For him to say that he's not against it is ridiculous, and simply further evidence that he wants it both ways; i.e. "I'm against the PA" when talking to liberals, and "I'm not really against the PA" when talking to moderates - especially security moms.
I went to UW for 4 years, lived in Madison for 5 ('97 - '02). You don't realize just how extremely left the entire city and culture is until you've lived outside the area for any extended period of time. As a financial conservative and a social moderate, I was led to believe that I was in line with Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberston, and the rest of the far right bloc...not the case.
Also - gotta love the compassion and class shown by Kerry and Edwards in naming Dick Cheney's daughter in the debates...and then Lizzy Edwards stating the Cheney's are ashamed of their daughter the next day. My gay friends were nothing short of appalled upon watching the third debate and seing Kerry let that crap flow out of his mouth. They're no longer voting, not voting for Bush, but certainly not voting for Kerry - nice work dumbass!
Hope this helps to clarify my viewpoints.
Kevin
West Bend, WI
Anonymous (October 15, 2004 @ 11:14pm):
Awesome letter! Kerry/Edwards 2004!
Anonymous (October 16, 2004 @ 1:58am):
Kevin, did you copy that from Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity?
And stop lying about your supposed gay friends. Gay people do not give a rat's behind about this non-issue. I'm gay and every gay person I know (many outside of Madison!) is appalled at the Republicans for their fake indignation. We far and away are voting for Kerry en masse. Nice try though, liar.
Anonymous (October 16, 2004 @ 2:36am):
Why do people like Kevin believe that stubbornly refusing to take facts into account when forming policy makes one a good president? Or lying repeatedly about both the military record or one's opponent, who actually served his country, while hiding details of his own service in a position secured with his father's influence?
People who live in Massachusetts would tell you that Kerry is nowhere near as liberal as Bush and people like Kevin would have you believe. While he is more liberal than Clinton, you need to remember that Clinton was a moderate. In any case, I don't understand why the people who think Kerry is so unfit to be president because he is "so liberal" think Bush is fit to be president when he is the most conservative president in US history.
Anonymous (October 16, 2004 @ 12:46pm):
I agree with poster who says that people who live in Massachusetts would tell you that Kerry is nowhere near as liberal as Bush. Kerry is really just a conservative Democrat. I've read all over the Internet where Kerry said he is against gay marriage. He is not exactly for pulling our troops out of Iraq, which is what the overwhelming majority of liberals want, but rather he wants to send more troops for a longer period of time. How would anyone accomplish that without more spending and restarting the draft? Remember when Johnson, another conservative Democrat, got us into Vietnam the same way?
I'm only voting for Kerry because Nader ain't makin' it, but I don't expect Kerry to do that much better than Bush.
Anonymous (October 16, 2004 @ 12:55pm):
You know, Dimitri, liberals live in a fantasy land all their own too. Perhaps you haven't lived in this country long enough to realize that. Both liberals and conservatives have their own twisted perceptions of how things should be, but sometimes they actually come up with ideas that make sense. Too bad those bright ideas are few and far between.
Both have disappointed me equally. To me, an election is merely a matter of choosing the lesser evil. Who that lesser evil seems to be depends on whether you're a liberal or a conservative. Of course, that would explain why it is so hard for people in this country to fully agree on something. Isn't democracy a beautiful thing?
Anonymous (October 16, 2004 @ 5:25pm):
To the anonymous gay person who will vote for Kerry: Guy, don't get your hopes up too high about Kerry. I am also gay, but Kerry hardly impresses me. He has already stated publicly that he is opposed to gay marriage. Bill Clinton was also opposed to it, otherwise he would have helped to legalize it.
I'm voting for Kerry too, but I don't expect much from him.
Anonymous (October 16, 2004 @ 10:45pm):
Dude, one step at a time just like the civil rights movement. Kerry is for partnership benefits. Let's at least get that; the rest will follow. We have the consitution on our side. Don't think for a moment Bush will do anything for us.
Anonymous (October 17, 2004 @ 6:10am):
Dude, one step at a time is too slow for things that should've been done a long time ago. The rate things are changing now is almost as if there no constitution at all!
Anonymous (October 17, 2004 @ 1:29pm):
Dude, if you vote for Bush, pretty soon it won't be "as if" there is no Constitution at all. There will be no Constitution anymore.
Anonymous (October 17, 2004 @ 5:22pm):
Dude, I wasn't recommending that anyone vote for Bush anyway, so just, like, chill.
Anonymous (October 17, 2004 @ 10:18pm):
Dude!
Dude!
Dude!
Dudes, you sound like idiots calling each other dude. Leave that crap to the Republicans.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 8:15am):
Dude, Republicans don't call each other dude.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 10:04am):
Republicans don't have gay friends because they're all raging homophobes. We're all staunch pro-lifers as well. Not only that, we'd like to take back the voting rights for African Americans and women because there's no way those two groups could be expected to make an educated choice when it comes to politics. And if that weren't enough, we'd also like to have the Pope and other religious leaders bless every policy decision before signing it into law.
We also get our opinions straight from O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush, etc. Republicans are not free thinkers, rather robots programmed by daytime radio talk show hosts. I wouldn't know my stance on the issues if I didn't have Rush to tell me how to think. This is in opposition to the "mainstream" viewpoints shared by many students on this campus - all of which are highly educated individuals, at least much more so than any Republican could ever hope to be. I wish that I hadn't been brainwashed by the conservative right and could say that I'm able to form my own opinions like so many students at UW are able to do. Maybe then I would be able to make a vote for the right candidate this November...the election is on the 2nd, right? Rush told us to tune in that day for some very important directions on what to do at the polls...
Kevin in the WB
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 2:32pm):
"This is in opposition to the "mainstream" viewpoints shared by many students on this campus - all of which are highly educated individuals."
Does that include the notion that all straight white males are agents of the devil, the very idea that liberals on this campus have been forcing down everyone's throats for the past ten years? Like none of us could possibly be liberal ourselves?
It's no wonder that so many of us have swung to the right. We're no longer welcome in the liberal camp. Proud to be a straight white male. Changed my major from political science to Business Administration. Instead of dressing like a freak, I dress like a decent human being. Instead of gangsta rap, I listen to white rock bands. Screw all of you if you have a problem with that. We're economically better off, better educated, healthier and don't have to put up with your BS anymore. I think I'll hang out with my Jewish friends this weekend instead of you liberal assholes who never have anything nice to say about Americans, Jews, Christians or white people. You dissed us, so now we're dissin' you. Suffer! Ha-ha-ha-ha!
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 2:40pm):
You are an idiot.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 3:03pm):
Bitter? Table for one?
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 3:41pm):
Yes - straight, white males are agents of the devil...and they shouldn't be allowed at Michigan's Law School either. You want admission - show me how you've been oppressed, I dare you.
Nothing but silver spoons, country clubs, and elite fraternal organizations for me. Weird how that happened considering my dad's a construction worker and my mom runs a small business. I had more debt coming out of school than I would make in my first year of employment, but I was a white male, so I had life licked...more money than I know what to do with, never had to work for anything in my life, and a nice little white house in the suburbs that mommy and daddy gave to me as a wedding gift. I'm also driving the Lexus SUV that was given to me for graduation...I am, after all, a white male, so all of this must be true.
If only I'd fall in line with mainstream viewpoints from Madison, then the government could give all of those nice things to me by taxing the rich...but wait, I'm a white male, so they'd just be taxing me to make all of my dreams come true...
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 4:10pm):
What the fuck are you talking about?
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 4:45pm):
George W. Bush: Worst President Ever
http://iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 4:46pm):
ATTENTION BADGER HERALD READERS!
I believe I've actually found the world's only honest Republican.
Quoth the Republican:
"Republicans don't have gay friends because they're all raging homophobes. We're all staunch pro-lifers as well. Not only that, we'd like to take back the voting rights for African Americans and women because there's no way those two groups could be expected to make an educated choice when it comes to politics. And if that weren't enough, we'd also like to have the Pope and other religious leaders bless every policy decision before signing it into law.
We also get our opinions straight from O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush, etc. Republicans are not free thinkers, rather robots programmed by daytime radio talk show hosts. I wouldn't know my stance on the issues if I didn't have Rush to tell me how to think. This is in opposition to the "mainstream" viewpoints shared by many students on this campus - all of which are highly educated individuals, at least much more so than any Republican could ever hope to be. I wish that I hadn't been brainwashed by the conservative right and could say that I'm able to form my own opinions like so many students at UW are able to do. Maybe then I would be able to make a vote for the right candidate this November...the election is on the 2nd, right? Rush told us to tune in that day for some very important directions on what to do at the polls..."
I bet you never thought they'd admit they were evil and stupid, either.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 5:09pm):
See my point? I inject a little spiel about straight white males and all the liberals come out in droves, pissed as pissed gets and they want a fight. Yessiree, I am proud of what I am! All I ever got from you poor, poor, pitiful liberals was envy and scorn, no matter how hard I tried to please you. No more.
If only you had been more tolerant of me when I was a liberal myself, then maybe I'd still be on your side. But no, I'm a straight white guy, therefore I'm dirt. The only way to gain your respect was if I was willing to curse my own "privilege", as if I, who grew up in foster homes thanks to an alcoholic father and a pill-popping mother, actually had any privilege. I had to struggle to get everything while the rich kids partied their guts out. On top of that, I've been accused of being everything liberals love to hate. Even one of my poli-sci profs referred to me, albeit hypothetically, as "obviously a conservative", even though my views on such issues as gay marriage and affirmative action were more liberal than his. Get real! I'm sticking to my own personal pride in myself, because that is what has carried me through all the BS in my life. You all took one look at me and said "Straight, white, male...EVIL!!"
Yeah, screw you too! Especially all you rich white liberal kids from well-to-do families who only pretend to care about the less fortunate and who are just going to forget about liberal causes the day after you graduate, IF you graduate, and slip into cushy jobs, just like your hippy parents did. Like you really care about anything! God, what a waste of time you morons are.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 5:34pm):
I agree with last poster. I grew up in a working-class family, though I didn't exactly have it as bad as he did. When I came to Madison fours ago, I was pumped and ready to fight for change. I had always felt that conservatives didn't give a damn about anyone who had to work for a living. As soon as I started to get involved-BAM!!!! "Sorry dude, you're a straight white boy. You don't belong here. Go hang out with the jocks and the Biz majors."
Um, OK. And it has been that way for me ever since. Looking back, I can see that the only way to get out from between a rock and a hard place is to decide which side would make me feel more welcome. And since the liberals just slammed the door in my face and conservatives never actually attacked me personally, the decision should be of no surprise.
You liberals could've had me and a lot of other determined folks in your corner. But when push went to shove, you shoved us. We have no choice now. Good luck. Luck is all you have left, it seems.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 5:54pm):
To the last two posters:
Cry me a river, you wusses! Is it the fault of rational liberals on this campus that you only hung out with ultraradical guilt-ridden liberals? There are plenty of liberals on this campus who are disgusted by the "straight white males are evil" crowd, and we ridicule them at least as much as the uptight conservatives, if not more. But instead of showing some spine and looking for likeminded people who aren't a bunch of pseudointellectual blowhards, you decided to join a bunch of pseudointellectual blowhards at the other extreme end of the political spectrum.
All because a few liberals weren't nice to you. As we all listen to the tiny violin playing a soft dirge for you, please know that I share your pain. My nose drips for you.
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 8:28am):
Gosh, you mean there were sane, level-headed liberals on this campus all the time? And no one even knew they were here? So tell me, asshole, where can I find these folks? Gee, I don't recall hearing them shouting down all the gung-ho morons who think the only way to fight for a cause is to riot, get arrested or set fire to SUVs.
Please tell me before I cast my vote for Bush. The clock is ticking!
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 5:55pm):
Hey, the two ex-liberals, and especially the last guy:
You want to know where rational liberals are hiding? I'm one. You can email me at [ zloduska@lucifer.com ] if you like. I try to make nice with people, even if I don't fully agree with them. That's the problem with hanging out with any "extreme" group, left or right-- you never get anywhere unless you fully assimilate and believe *exactly* what they believe; otherwise they reject you and give you a hard time.
You two guys are guilty of this logic mistake (as I learned in my tedious, required philosophy class this sememster), committing the fallacy of false dilemma: You both seem to be asserting that you need to choose one of two opposed sides (liberal or conservative) or else, when really, those are not the only two options that exist. Why does everyone have to have a label? They do not.
In my own experience, I came to Madison out of a high school in a small rural town. My "radical" views were not appreciated in the conservative town I came from, so it was a relief to attend school here. I made one attempt to join a politically-affliated group on campus (which shall remain nameless, as they are quite rabid and I don't really need any flack from them) by going to an introductory meeting. Even though most would describe my beliefs/opinions as quite liberal, I made the error of actually questioning them on their views that I did not agree with, to which the response was very negative. Bascially, they were assholes because, although I agreed with them on many social issues (gay rights, pro-choice, etc) they frowned on me because I wasn't exactly in line with how they thought.
However, I didn't make your mistake, and decide to jump to the other side, instead I decided that I did not want to be a part of any organization or political group, and I would adopt my own individualized stance on each separate issue, after thinking about it as rationally as I could. Often it fits in with the liberal agenda, sometimes it does not. Why belong to any side? Most of my friends are 'liberal' like me, but even those that are moderately conservative are not evil, or necessarily stupid, but they choose to disagree, or won't see things from my perspective. By being reasonable, maybe one day I will change their minds.
As a matter of fact, most of the liberal-minded people I know are "straight white males" in Madison. Some are UW-Madison students, some are not. Just because they are not on the street corner with signs advertising this does not mean they are non-existant.
So stop spouting about how oppressed liberals here make you feel, lest you start sounding like one of the nutjobs you are talking about.
-Kristy
