Editor:
Congratulations! The anti-abortion “”advertising”” insert from the Human Life Alliance that was run with the Thursday, Jan. 18 issue was an unqualified triumph. I am an admitted media junkie, and I have seen more movies and read more books and newspapers and magazines than anyone I have yet to come into contact with, and Thursday’s insert was absolutely the most atrocious and bigoted collection of mis-information I have ever seen.
It was astounding in its breadth and scope! After a little research, I discerned that it had used every single logical fallacy and form of sophistry known to man. Look at it again: They’re all there! Circular reasoning, false dichotomies, straw man, slippery slope, false cause, non sequitur, faulty analogy, equivocation, hasty generalization, half-truths, over-reliance on authorities, appeals to tradition, appeals to the masses, ad hominem attacks, genetic fallacies, appeals to ignorance, appeals to fear, special pleading, oxymoronic language, strange loops and every possible form of pseudoscience and misuse of statistics on record! Staggering!
I find the reasoning of your editorial board rather faulty, as well. To run something simply because it is or is not “”an issue that is discussed or debated in society”” seems like an extremely pale and tepid excuse to accept advertising funds from a fundamentalist religious group with no real interest in either objective news reporting or academia (save the opportunity to shove dogma in front of unsuspecting college students). Holocaust revisionism most certainly gets discussed in society. So does my personal favorite oxymoron, “”creation science.”” But I suspect that your board would deny an offer to publish an insert from our own Institute for Creation Research in Santee, were it to arise. And I’m surprised I even need to say it, but the function of the newspaper is to recognize the discussion and objectively report the opinions of both sides, not to kowtow to whoever greases their palms sufficiently.
Perhaps you and the editorial board were under outside, clandestine, nonmonetary pressure to publish such a laughable thing, and if that is indeed the case, it is a big problem, and you have my apologies. But if that is not the case, it is a much worse problem.
To hold these views is one thing. To try to foist them on people is another. And to pay to have them published in the form of “”advertising”” (where, as you admit, students usually see special offers from computer companies or travel agencies of textbook wholesalers or electronics/media retailers) in a university publication, and have the newspaper consent to such a thing, is a vastly different situation. A frightfully shameful situation. Perhaps you should have run the Holocaust deniers’ ad. The propaganda in their insert couldn’t possibly have been worse than that of the anti-abortion one.
I suspect that the Human Life Alliance (the name itself is a fallacy!) pays to publish these inserts in the spirit of the classic “”if only one woman decides against an abortion, it will have been worth it”” attitude/conceit. The only possible benefit I can see from the irresponsible inclusion of this insert in an otherwise respectable college newspaper is that if only one rabid pro-life woman reads it and changes her stance, simply because she’s embarrassed to be associated with any group that would so callously and recklessly abuse rationality and insult the common sense of womankind, it will have been worth it.
— James Beacham
Staff, Media Center
Letter was Wrong with its Accusations
Editor:
In the Jan. 8 issue of the UCSD Guardian, College Democrats President Terry Schanz almost single-handedly manages to capture what it is to be a modern liberal Savior. He has worked his butt off, and by golly, you and all who write for the Guardian better not only recognize it, but also support it with all you’ve got. But I — I mean we — did all of the things he said: We yelled at people until they finally broke down and voted; and, if we weren’t imposing our political ideologies on others by dancing around them in a yellow frenzy, we simply threw yellow shirts at them. And you didn’t even bother writing about it
More unfortunately, Schanz mistakes the spirit of the Bacchanalia for something productive, claiming that at least for their part, the College Democrats strove to promote political awareness. About the only thing that may be construed as politically edifying would be a strong dose of liberal bombast. Instead, the listener would get an education in liberal rhetoric, and would be ready in a flash to lecture others on the good life.
For my part, I would rather become politically astute by simply distinguishing between what is said and what is done. If Schanz wants people to be politically informed on Democratic policies and strategies, permit me to discuss the matter of ex-Secretary of Labor designate, Linda Chavez.
Liberals have long been perceived as the protectors of human rights, and in spite of their faulty economic policies, one is compelled to refrain from openly admonishing them for fear of being named as the opposition of all that is humane. After all, how could one dare to stand against these champions of those who suffer from domestic abuse, or those who starve for a decent meal, or those who are, simply put, minorities? But suppose the champions are actually the people whom the liberals are trying to destroy. In 1993, Marta Mercado, sought the help of Linda Chavez. Chavez, as Mercado testifies, fed and clothed her, and helped her find a job. For Mercado, the United States was, at least for a short time, what she thought it would be: a place in which even domestically abused alien immigrants could find safety and work, thanks to genuinely charitable Americans.
Several years have passed, and Mercado has since applied for citizenship. But what should be an account of the American dream has now become yet another account of shady politics. The liberal media and the FBI have hounded Mercado with questions concerning Chavez’s care, with the apparent hope of finding something that would save our nation. They forced Chavez to withdraw her name as the Secretary of Labor designate.
Not surprisingly, Chavez didn’t exploit a trial as an opportunity to increase her prestige among great humanitarians; she didn’t raid the airwaves; and she didn’t even write The UCSD Guardian, in an angry wreck, and beg for more publicity. She simply withdrew her name, while keeping her class and honor.
“”Linda Chavez tripped over the gun and shot herself,”” Nancy Skinner said, a liberal radio talk show host. On the contrary, it is clear that if anyone is accused of “”shooting”” Chavez, the person would be a Democrat. The message should be made plain: If you are a minority or at a disadvantage or trying to make it in this horrible world, we’ll help you as long as you do it under our program — and thereby, empower us.
Unfortunately for Linda, she was not so easily sold. But, to her relief, a remnant still perceives the subtleties of the modern liberal agenda. As for Terry, he said he and his crew “”sacrificed countless hours toward an issue they were passionate about.”” And it is indeed a sad thing to have been passionate about something, and to have sacrificed for something, and yet to appear to have never reached the desired outcome of political awareness.
— Edward J. Loya Jr.
Revelle Senior
