War and peace

Yesterday as I was walking on campus, I overheard an ROTC cadet say the following, "Now that Obama is president, I won't have to worry about going to war."

To you and other apathetic individuals, I say the following: Your attitude is reckless and irresponsible. America's heritage includes courage of citizens to step forward in the face of war, and our future prosperity requires the same courage to face (sometimes with lethal force) enemies who threaten the peace and security of the United States of America. Face it, war is here and it's here to stay. Whether you like it or not, war is necessary to maintain peace.

Furthermore, if you can't handle the prospect of going to war, then don't disgrace the courage of others who have taken the same oath of service. If you don't have the backbone to fully serve, then don't don the uniform.

BEN WATSON

Fairfield, Mont.

One party system

I was surprised by the margin by which Obama lost in Utah. I of course expected him to lose, but not by that margin. When one party has clearly shown its incompetence, become corrupted and gone against everything it stands for, why does it still get an overwhelming number of votes in one area? Are abortion and gay marriage the only issues that are paramount in choosing a president? At what point do sending people to fight in a war that was uncalled for, ruining the economy and becoming corrupt become good virtues as long as you oppose abortion and gay marriage?

Are we not in some way promoting a one party system just like Iran and some of the other dictatorships around the world? We now have our own equivalents of the Ayatollahs in the Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons who have hijacked the Republican Party and try as much as possible to dictate radical right wing polices to the whole nation. You can vote Democratic at least once in a while and still fight for your beliefs in opposing gay marriage and abortion as it was clearly done in California. A one party system encourages corruption and it does not challenge our representatives to do better.

CALEB BUAHIN

Provo

Gush up economics

I can't sit silently while someone else suggests that Barack Obama wants to take money from the wealthy and give it to "non-taxpayers" (Nov. 7 letter entitled "Help the poor more"). We have always had a progressive income tax system, because this nation understands that possessing greater resources is accompanied by greater social responsibility.

Those that qualify for the earned income tax credit (i.e. low income families) most certainly do pay taxes. They pay payroll taxes (FICA). They pay sales taxes, and in Utah they even pay taxes on food. They pay gasoline taxes, tolls, etc. They pay property taxes and registration fees on automobiles. If they are renters, their rents pay the landlord's property tax burden, while the owner is able to depreciate the property on his/her taxes. Many of these forms of taxation are particularly regressive because such living expenses consume a larger share of their income.

Trickle down (gush up, actually) economics has stratified this country from having a large middle class to one with an uber-wealthy class, a professional class and the working poor. Barack Obama recognizes this is neither socially nor economically healthy. It is time those who have listened to Republican propaganda realize this too.

STEVE NELSON

Provo

Hear our voice

This letter is in response to the Nov. 7 viewpoint titled "Temporary activation; young voters aren't civically engaged for good." In this viewpoint, the editor argued "youth were largely disengaged before Obama, and after him, the same will be true." She also compared Obama's campaign to Miley Cyrus's hypothetical opera debut. All I've got to say is, if the fat lady would sing about things that preteens care about at all or try to appeal to them at all, they'd stick around even after Miley "left her viking horns."

Yes, the high turnout in young voters probably has a lot to do with the fact that Obama was running. But that's because he was a candidate who most young voters felt they could finally relate to when it comes to things that are important to them. In the past, it's been like a vicious cycle. Young voters don't vote anyway, so why talk to them? Political candidates don't talk to us anyway, so why vote at all? It's like all the political candidates before Obama were to young voters what the fat lady is to preteens. I think we are civically engaged for good if we continue to feel like someone is hearing our voice.

STEFANIE WALL

Anchorage, Alaska

No thank you, America

Reading the Reader's Forum has always been a fun experience for me, as I nearly always run across people with different opinions or ideas. Usually, I just laugh it off and move on. However, when I read "Thank you, America" in the Nov. 7 paper, I couldn't resist from making a few comments.

Firstly, I don't know you and you don't know me, so all I have to go off of is the "opinion" you posted. Starting with that, I can't get over the fact that it sounds like you voted for Obama because he is African-American. Normally people vote for candidates according to their platforms and ideals; however, your entire article was focused on how much America has grown because we will soon have an African-American president. I couldn't help but notice that you never mentioned any of his actual stances, except for socialized health care, which you said you are "not so sure about." In response to that, I would like to point out Canada's health care. If we were to adopt socialized health care, we would end up with their same problems - a six-month waiting list for a simple MRI. Did you know the city of Philadelphia has more MRI machines than all of Canada? When you have to wait six months and fly halfway across the U.S. to get an MRI, let me know how you feel.

I just feel it is important that people actually look at politicians' platforms and vote accordingly rather than by race. I don't think "civil rights fighters are dancing in their graves," because they realize that you cheated the political process they fought to protect by not voting responsibly. Try looking into what practices the candidates support before voting in 2012 and maybe you won't vote for the only senator to support live abortion ... definitely not "taking a step in the direction that Jesus would have."

ERIC RINGER

Milwaukee, Wis.

Time to unify

I am disappointed with the BYU Democrats. Last Wednesday - the day after our exhilarating victory (I am a BYU Democrat, you see) - they rented a booth in the Wilk to celebrate and recruit. One of the signs mockingly advertised a grief therapy group for Republicans. Maybe it was all in fun, but the cultural divide in our nation (exploited by both sides during the campaign) is serious and frightening, even more so than a McCain presidency. Now is not the time to gloat. Now is the time to unify. This advice could serve Republicans as well (and certainly during the past eight years), but as a BYU Democrat I was disappointed to see such divisive tactics coming from my own camp.

ANNA JENSEN

Salt Lake City

Say "NO" to textbooks

Both students and teachers are arguing about the necessity of having a textbook in class. Although some people think textbooks are essential in the process of learning, I believe teachers should be the primary source of knowledge because books are difficult to read. You have to learn how to do this quickly and efficiently. Students shouldn't be obligated to read books when teachers can explain the material in full.

Learning from books is hard for international students. Readings usually take twice as much time as it would take for a native speaker. As an international student, I have to look up the words in a dictionary that don't affect the idea of the article if omitted. Moreover, some students like to learn in classes from teachers rather than from reading books.

BYU offers the independent study program, which is designed specifically for students who like to learn from books, not from the class discussions. If you are one of them, I suggest that you enroll in this program and don't make the rest of us suffer.

ILYA VINOGRADOV

Ust-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan

Tight pants debacle

While fashion police mostly go after the girls for low-cut shirts and short skirts with leggings (seriously? - they make it OK to wear a dress that's more like a long shirt?), there is actually something I'd like to address with some of the guys on campus. Oh, the miraculous resurgence of tight pants. Hey, guy or girl, whatever, you want to wear tight pants? Go ahead. However, in the guys' realm of tight-pants wearing, there is a bit of a debacle. Not only are the pants tight, but they're supposed to hang halfway down your bum like baggy jeans would. That's slightly disconcerting, since unlike the baggy jeans, the tight pants dig in to your skin making it an unpleasant sight to have your bum spilling out.

But there's the more important issue that guys on campus must be debating with themselves on - wear the tight pants up higher and be more modest, or wear them halfway down their bum and show their garments? Unfortunately, many returned missionaries wearing this style have their garments hanging out. You know what? Whatever. Wear tight pants. Have your bum spilling out the back. But showing your garments like that? I admit I haven't been on a mission. I don't wear garments. But I had always thought they should be respected. Maybe I'm wrong. Really, if that's your way of trying to "attract a wife" ... there are better ways. So seriously, can you try to cover your garments up like you're supposed to?

MARIE GARDNER

Copyright Brigham Young University 10 Nov 2008