Letter to the editor

Critical thinking necessary in opinion

Mark Rykal

Student

Critical thinking, common sense and basic composition skills are the three things missing from the opinion section of the Fourth Estate.

Each contributor is entitled to his or her opinions, but I think some critical thinking skills, a bit of common sense and some experience in composition would serve them well. Thought processes and sentences are jumbled up, and I’m not sure whether to agree, disagree or simply nod my head supportively like I do with my 2-year-old nephew.

For example, Elizabeth Steiner’s tirades include hostility towards people asking questions, our election process and holiday shopping. Somebody please give this woman a hug.

In her Dec. 7 installment, I’m lost as to the overall point. Ideas seem to be mashed together without some sort of connecting thought. Please seek help from the writing center, and possibly a counselor.

Luke Whitley, an advocate for torture and violating human rights, seeks to inform us about the “memory-erasing” drug. I’m afraid we’ve had that for quite some time — it’s called alcohol. To keep from being reminded of the ass you made of yourself at the big party, give the drug to your friends. A composition course, along with a critical thinking class, may help his writing and humanity. 

Other examples include Jacob Scott Dobrzynski, who supports speeding and ridding ourselves of those pesky interstate cops, saving gas and stopping drunk drivers.

Danielle Behrle’s Dec. 7 article seems to say that it’s not religion or commercialism that brings us holiday cheer, but rather getting together with family, who then enrage you to the point of violence, leaving you unable to be around them for another year. Very cheerful. 

Maybe these contributors would be less negative if they could show support for a positive issue, perhaps discussing the Phuture Phoenix program, the benefits of drinking red wine or simply writing about what interests them, like shiny, sparkly keys dangled just out of reach. 

Speaking of positive, Mike Mathison does include research and facts to support his views, even if I disagree with them. Andrew Belfield is entertaining, though prone to weak arguments of whim. So my suggestion is to put some effort into these opinions. It shouldn’t take longer to read them than to write them.

Police shooting requires guidelines

Scott Roder

Student

Mike Mathison seems quite ready to make the recent New York police shooting into a racial incident and throw some officers under the bus before all the facts are in.

Mike, would it surprise you to know the first officer to fire a shot was a black officer of Haitian descent? Did you know one of the officers had been shot a couple years before and did not shoot back? I guess you missed that part in your rush to judgment that this was a racial incident.

Here are a couple more points of clarification on the shooting:

1. The officers are not stripped of their guns. When you shoot someone, they take your guns and put them into evidence to run ballistic tests on them to see who shot whom and how many times.

2. Almost all modern police agencies send their officers on administrative leave when they are involved in a shooting. This allows the officers to get their heads right. Then the cops get sent to the shrink.

3. If you can justify shooting at someone one time, you can justify shooting at them 50 times. Officers are trained to shoot until the threat stops. If you should not have shot the first time, then every round afterwards is probably not justified either.

4. Firing 50 bullets takes less than 10 seconds for five officers. I can personally shoot a 15-round magazine accurately in about 5 seconds.

I am not saying the NYPD officers were justified in this incident because I don’t have all the facts, and then again, neither do you. Unlike you, I don’t think it’s a racial incident unless you want to call black-on-black shootings racial.

One last thing you might think about: The national average for retaining officers two years after a shooting is about 50 percent. Most people become cops to help people, not kill them. The psychological aspects take a huge toll on the officers, and half end up quitting. So who knows? You might get your wish, and the NYPD officers will be gone.

Richards justified in stand-up

Nick Reed

Student

I just read the article about the racist things Kramer said, and I just want to say I think he was justified. The man who he was yelling at was heckling him, basically trying to destroy the man in the middle of his stand-up, and Michael Richards was obviously upset by this.

The only real way to get your image back after a heckler starts taunting you is to insult the heckler, which he did, for better or worse. If you insult a man on the stage, I don’t think you have any right to be offended if the man insults you back. Of course, maybe that’s not the issue.

After all, he said the n-word. Where does that fit in here in a post-Chris Rock, post-“Chapelle’s Show” world? Does it really shock anyone anymore? If black people are offended by the word, then maybe they should stop using it themselves. I think it’s ridiculous that this is ruining the man’s image. Actions speak louder than words, and all he did was say a few words.

Letters to the editor must be received on or before the Thursday prior to their intended publication date. Letters can be submitted in the Fourth Estate drop box, located outside University Union 130 (behind the Phoenix Club) or e-mailed to 4e@uwgb.edu. Letters should be no more than 300 words and must identify the author. Submissions will be edited for spelling and grammar. All submissions received will be published.