Generation needs to define identity

To the Editor:
I would like to thank Kristina Egger for her commentary in the Nov. 1 edition of The Appalachian, which is one of the most accurate portrayals of our generation I’ve read.
While I don’t look down upon people for simply standing up for what they believe in, all too often, our generation’s “movements” are only “righteousness fads,” as I call them. The protesting group at Sanford Mall fell victim to hypocrisy, by baselessly claiming that its target was “American indoctrination,” while they themselves are products of palpable cultural conditioning.
As Egger mentioned, it is easy for us to talk about peace when we ourselves have never been threatened. Thus, we replace our lack of true drama with nostalgic renditions of once-meaningful movements.
Now, our generation does not know of a Great Depression or a
World War, but we do know of an attack that claimed 5,000 of fellow citizens, whom the majority of us didn’t know. How do we answer this?
Surely we must avoid more pointless deaths, but how can we sit idly and let a group of terrorists rip us apart?
It’s time for us to stop blindly accepting what the media and our peers tell us and to stop evading the responsibility of making logical decisions for us.
It’s time for us to develop an identity and come up with new solutions, or our generation will only be known for its SUVs, credit cards and righteousness fads.
Patrick Ashe Curry
ASU P.O. Box 12221
Sophomore

Take a lesson from Oakley

To the Editor:
For seven years, I have been wasting my time. This is how long I’ve been doing research into the causes of crime and teaching students about how to effectively prevent it.
The more I learn, the less I seem to know.
Many crimes, including some acts of terrorism, arise out of complex conditions and are produced by an array of factors, or at least that is what I thought.
Then I read the last two columns by Sean Oakley, published in The Appalachian, where he taught me that people who don’t support U.S. military actions are “protesters without a cause” and that people who do not agree with him are “ignorant.”
This includes me, I presume, for Oakley lumps all of us with concerns about our government’s response to terrorism into one group of nut- cases, pot-smokers and radicals living in dreamland.
If only I had taken classes from Oakley during the years when I was in graduate school. He could have taught me how easy crime is to understand, how easy it is to prevent and how ridiculous it is to spend so much time trying to understand why people commit crime so that we can effectively prevent it.
Gosh, all we have to do is drop bombs on people and there will be no terrorism. What was I thinking?
Sincerely,
Dr. Matthew Robinson
Political Science and Criminal Justice
robinsnmb@appstate.edu

A.P.P.S needs to show more courtesy

To The Editor:
I’m writing in response to the behavior of A.P.P.S. Stage Shows, which occurred the night before the Lifehouse concert (which the students of Appalachian deserve to have the opportunity to see). As our team finished practice Monday evening, we were in our locker room getting ready to go home. We were interrupted by the stage show crew as they started to re-arrange our locker room to house the band.
We were also told that we wouldn’t be able to use our locker room the day of the show. I feel that [one member of the stage show staff] was acting in error when he chose to house the band in our locker room. Our first competitions are this weekend, and this was not what our team needed to get ready to represent our school.
My question to members of the A.P.P.S. Stage Shows is simple: Why couldn’t you use the convocation center or the visitor’s locker room that is vacant in Varsity Gym? Thanks for being inconsiderate, and once again, thinking of only your organization.
Willie Northen
Junior
ASU Wrestling
appstate141@yahoo.com

Help others to share in convictions

To The Editor:
This is a response to the columns written by Sean Oakley since Sept. 11, and most recently, his column of Nov. 6.
You are completely correct when you state that “ you can’t argue with ignorance.” However, I must say that your views, which you are completely entitled to you under the first amendment to the constitution, reek of ignorance. You are so quick to polarize yourself from the “anti-war” crowd that you fail to recognize that some people may have reasons for their beliefs other than the government not letting them “smoke pot on the street corner. “You also attack the “anti-war group that cited sustainable development as a solution to the Middle East Crisis.” Do you even know what sustainable development means?
You claim to have done your research, but yet you attack so vehemently those who oppose your views while at the same time lauding the first amendment rights. Are those who choose to express their freedoms to disagree really your “opponents,” Sean ( as you said in your Nov. 6 column)? Are they also the enemy? Are they also the evildoers? You purport that your views are rooted reality, but a statement about anti-war protestors “holding each other’s hands while singing ‘We are the World’ ” has no basis in reality as far as I can tell.
Sean, when I read your columns (which I have been doing regularly since Sept. 11), I get the impression that there are some self-serving motives underlying your rhetoric. If you truly believe in this war on terrorism, it seems that you would feel it your patriotic duty to help others to share in your convictions, not to attack and alienate them. You say that the actions of the terrorists were backed by “nothing but hatred” (which I partially agree with), yet your own hatred emanates so strongly that it is almost impossible to see the message you attempt to convey. Do you subscribe to the belief that unity is necessary to win this war, and if so, then why are you so actively promoting division?
Austin Jett
Aj29858@cp.appstate.edu

Innocent murders breed more terrorism

To the Editor:
I respond to Sean Oakley’s commentary published Nov. 6, entitled, “You can’t argue with ignorance.”
I assert opposition to the current actions of the U.S. military without renouncing my citizenship, without condoning terrorists and without dishonoring the U.S. victims.
I can also avoid insipid attacks, which I suggest Mr. Oakley should try.
His assertion is that anyone who does not support the war does not offer their own solution.
But I offer coherent alternatives to the current policy, asserting that a world court is better than a world war, and in America’s best interest, as opposed to slaughtering innocents who are neither Al-Queada nor even Taliban in the bombing of Afghanistan.
The truth is that the U.S. has already bombed or severely damaged two hospitals, an old-folks home, several mosques, several villages, a hydroelectric dam and six Red Cross warehouses, none of which were military targets or even had any members of the Taliban nearby.
They are either not aiming or don’t care, sewing the seeds for deep resentment among the fifth of the world’s population that is Muslim. Every innocent we murder breeds more terrorists.
Daniel Trent Dillon
Senior
ASU Box 5060
265-3028

Less destructive dialogue needed

To the Editor:
I would like to thank Sean Oakley for his commentaries. I am glad to hear that people have diverse views on the current military actions taking place in Afghanistan.
But I would like also to warn him about the style of argumentation that he and those responding to him are currently engaged in.
I find this “’tis/t’aint” reaction and name calling on his part wholly unnecessary.
I understand that he is supporting, contrary to what he believes, a very popular opinion concerning the necessity of U.S. military actions, and I happen to disagree with U.S. military actions.
But I for one will not involve myself in name-calling or a tit for tat style of argumentation.
For it is this style of arguing that has landed us in a situation that involves heavy civilian causalities on both sides.
Rather I would encourage Mr. Oakley to engage in a more mature dialogue. To use his position, as a commentary writer for The Appalachian, to open up a dialogue that respects the others opinion and may actually turn out to be constructive and productive in investigating all corners, causes and solutions to the current situation.
I am sorry that he feels as though he cannot engage in this type dialogue, but I do hope that others are.
James Manos
Senior
Camus5757@aol.com

Suggestions for homeless project

To The Editor:
This article is in regards to the sociology club’s contribution to the Homeless Awareness week, which was sleeping on the mall.
Ah, the glory that is being “homeless”; apparently this concept is best illustrated by camping out with a couple of friends on campus territory that you’re guaranteed NOT to get kicked off of. Another great staple of this idea is that you know in the back of your head that if you get hungry, tired or cold, you can return to your dorm room or apartment. Something about this expedition doesn’t strike me as “homeless”.
Do not, however, misinterpret my opinion here. Those involved in this have a great idea, and I think if properly employed, this could be a wonderful learning experience.
A couple suggestions—make it more public—homeless people are avoided, stared at and mocked by millions, so why not actually dress stereotypically homeless and get out in the public eye, in a timeframe more accessible than 8 p.m. to 8 a.m.
I must say though, to anyone who really wants to try to understand how living that lifestyle actually is, try the “homeless not hopeless” plan. The idea: Leave all your money at your dorm/apartment/house, and actually BE homeless for any amount of time (a night, a weekend)
Yes, I’ve tried it, eaten from dumpsters, exploited resources to fit my needs and I have an incredible appreciation for what these people go through.
If nothing else, I just don’t want those who participated in Monday’s experiment to walk away, thinking “being homeless is a lot easier than I thought”.
Matt Gauck
Junior
sk8ractionmatt@netscape.net