To the Editor:

I don’t want to start ranting or anything, but a few weeks ago I read a “very intelligent” letter to the editor that said, “What’s the deal with protestors,” and “What’s wrong with Democrats?” The entire letter was a poorly worded rant that was in so many ways one of the worst pieces of political rhetoric I have ever seen. The entire aim of the letter, of course, was meant to be detracting: The author was simply trying to single out the political party that opposes his and try as hard as he can to bash said party, since he feels that his party is right and the other party is wrong. Narrow-mindedness aside, did the author have to start by ranting about his problems with “protestors?”

It’s not so much “What’s the deal with protestors” in this country right now as it is a noticeable lack of truly free speech–that is, people speaking their minds about something so that the government can hear. Currently, any “free speech” I’ve heard is completely bipartisan. If one side says something, the other instantly disagrees with it. There is no intelligent thought given to any issues.

Matt Hyde wrote an excellent article that was a quite rational argument for allowing homosexuals to have the civil right to a legal marriage, not a religious one, in our country. There is, of course, no intelligent discussion of this issue. One side (I won’t say which, you know which) says that “God won’t allow it,” even though the legal institution of marriage, as in the State, has nothing to do with God, and the other side fully disagrees, saying that even the Church should bend its opinion. The reason I thought Mr. Hyde’s article so persuasive was because it considered both sides: It considered the Church’s right to withhold marriage from homosexuals, while arguing that the government should promote equal protection rights and grant a legal marriage to all couples. Mr. Hyde’s article was good rhetoric because it was persuasive and showed an indication of serious thought and open-mindedness on the part of its author.

The letter that was “anti-protestor,” however, was not. What was the author getting at when he complained about protestors? Well, since our incumbent president is Republican, and his policies are as well, Democrats protest them, largely. Democrats are not for the war, though Republicans have been known to disagree with Bush as well. Bush wished to begin drilling in Alaska. Democrats, largely, protested this. Why would it be any other way? In a country as clearly bipartisan as ours is right now, what else would you expect?

Of course, narrow-minded political thinkers, like the author of that letter, aren’t going to protest anything. Someone like that writer just agrees with what Bush does, regardless. They have nothing to protest, because they have nothing to think about. Matt Hyde, on the other hand, has a great deal to think about, regardless of his political affiliations, and therefore does quite a bit more to further intelligent public discussion, unlike close-minded arguments meant to persuade no one and influence no one. The author of that letter wrote it simply to boost his own ego, which is why I find it funny that he complained about protestors: They were doing a hell of a lot more to further the public good then he was.

Marshall Johnson

Junior, College of Arts and Sciences