Dear Editor:

I submitted my absentee ballot for the Nov. 4 election nearly three weeks ago. Since then, I have had to sit through a whirlwind of political ads, commercials and articles that depict only one side of the story. I am tired of the one-sided mentality that stems from every piece of media that gets printed in our society. Sara Petersen’s article on the positives of Issue 6 (“Vote yes on Issue 6,” Nov. 3) is exactly the kind of closed-off, naive writing that I’m talking about.

I’m fine with Sara supporting Issue 6, but not for the reasons she mentions. I don’t care if she wants to “spend a few days … at the spa,” and I definitely don’t care how elaborate and pretty a one-sided Web site may be. In times of economic crisis, I can guarantee you that one thing we definitely do not need is a resort casino.

Instead of all this talk of fancy resorts, spas, golf courses and casinos, maybe everyone could take a look at all their expenditures and ask themselves, “Do I really need all this?” Do you really have to have five drinks instead of three on Saturday? Do you really have to buy national brands and not generics? Is that pair of shoes really necessary? I know it’s not your fault that the U.S. economy is going down the tubes. But it is your fault if the only thing you do to try to help the situation is voting Yes for a resort casino.

Zach Baker,

senior accounting and finance major

Dear Editor:

Imagine a soldier just released from Walter Reed Medical Center. Imagine him walking down the street in his pressed uniform, medals and badges shining in the sunlight. Notice him limp, ever so slightly. Beneath the clean olive green uniform, where used to be a leg of bone and flesh, now resides a prosthetic limb of titanium and carbon fiber. Now, imagine this soldier entering a bar and ordering a beer. Imagine that this soldier has just returned from his second 12-month tour in Iraq. Imagine him sipping that beer. Now imagine a police officer walking into the bar, asking to see that soldier’s ID, asking the soldier to step outside, handcuffing and arresting that soldier. Why? Because although that soldier was old enough to fight for his country, although he was old enough to kill and be killed, old enough to risk his life for his country, old enough to watch his friends die, to give a limb for his country, that same soldier was not old enough to have a beer in this country.

One in five of the members of the military who gave their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan were under the legal drinking age. How is it just to deprive the right to drink to the very people who fight for this nation?

Anti-drinking activists contend that changing the national drinking age in 1984 has saved thousands of lives. They say lowering the drinking age to age 18 will cause the deaths of hundreds more. They try to convince the public that letting 18-year-olds drink would be reckless and irresponsible. I dispute their methodology, but even if it were accurate, the safety argument does not serve as grounds to deny rights to adults. I am sure that if we lowered every speed limit to 25 mph it would save lives, if we banned swimming pools it would save lives and if we made everyone wear a helmet everywhere, it would save lives. Safety is a tempting excuse to abridge other people’s rights, but it is just that: an excuse.

Michael Doyle,

senior economics major and Iraq and

Afghanistan veteran