Letters to the editor

Sign snatcher can’t face the facts

To the editor:Last week a modest sign was placed on the front lawn of Dougherty displaying the number of U.S. casualties in Iraq and the cost of the war thus far. It was not painted red or blue – the numbers themselves are raw facts. The sign was almost immediately stolen. This could have been a random act of theft, but the handmade sign held little material value. The culprit is most likely a self-proclaimed supporter of the war in Iraq. But this behavior is by no means characteristic of someone who truly supports the war. A true supporter would be able to gaze at the numbers on the sign and say, “It is worth it.” He or she would see the climbing number of casualties and ponder the sad, yet necessary losses for what they feel to be a worthy cause. A supporter would not pilfer the sign; a coward would. The thief obviously felt threatened by the non-partisan sign. If the losses are really worthwhile and justified, there should be no issue with their public display. A sincere advocate would be willing to face the facts of the situation and still hold his or her opinion. One cannot support a situation if one cowers behind the facts.- Hannah Misner

Gossiping away credibilty?

To the editor:On behalf of The Villanovan’s reputation, I feel the need to speak out against Tina Lamsback’s “Nova Gossip” column from the March 29 issue. I understand that the majority of The Villanovan’s readership is college students who might enjoy hearing her juicy hook-up stories. However, when she tells us about when and where certain students urinated, it’s just not interesting. It’s not that I’m offended by it, nor am I against freedom of speech. A campus newspaper that has gotten as many awards as The Villanovan must have better things with which to fill up its pages than stories like this one. I cannot imagine that there is a single person at this school that cares about the fact that eight drunk students peed outside of a Wawa convenience store.- Ian Deitz

Bush gets no points for disasters

To the editor:Hello, I start by saying I have respect for your writing and your intellectual abilities, Tom Nardi, but your column, “Glad you could join us, Mr. Senator,” is flawed. Here’s why: Your airlifted quote about Bush saying things would be easier if it were a dictatorship implying he wants one is ludicrous. His point is, “Wow, if I were not in a democracy and had to answer for my actions, couldn’t I get away with anything like dictators such a Saddam?” Political points for Sept. 11? Are you serious? The president should be standing by the rubble saying we will rebuild this. We needed a leader, and who better than the leader of the free world? How can you possibly say that he is trying to score points off a disaster? Has your mind been so corrupted by a liberal media that you actually begin to recite it yourself? How can you blame a president in D.C. for the acts of a few soldiers in Iraq (He is responsible for their actions; however, just because of this doesn’t mean he encouraged it.)? He did not tell anyone to do what they did at Abu Ghraib. In fact, I feel the prisoners there are receiving much better treatment than when Saddam was in power. Think about the difference between what a few soldiers did in a rogue action and what Saddam allowed and encouraged his sons to do. I am disappointed that your column was not a fair balance. I am not saying it should be a fair balance because this is the beauty of free press (I am sure a dictator would not allow), but come on. There is no way you believe all of what you’re writing. I know that you’re intelligent, but this is absurd. Katrina? How can you ask him to overstep states’ rights and send anyone in. There are a couple problems you miss. The first would be that the mayor had to call the governor and ask for help, which didn’t happen until too late. And on top of that, the governor had to call the president and ask for help, which took too long. Bush has to wait so he does not become a dictator like you say he has become or is becoming. Finally, FEMA could not go in until a certain time after the storm because of the risks they faced from a possible following storm, meaning that Bush did what he could. He must be enabled to help before he can act. You make many points and raise many questions, but you do not defend your view to the level that should be done. Well-written article, but I respectfully disagree with your points.- Kevin Curley