Letters to the editor

Dear editor,

What, exactly, is the difference between Kal Penn coming to Kent State to speak about his opinions and what Matt White does every week? Nothing, outside of Penn being famous. Any famous people who share their concerns about politics are being socially responsible. Why can’t they have valid opinions? Would it be better if they just sat back and didn’t try to make a difference with their lives? Encouraging people to be involved politically isn’t a terrible offense. Because someone is famous

doesn’t disqualify them from sharing their opinion in America, but unless you preach precisely what White believes, you probably hate the USA – and are directly responsible for anything bad that happens to America.

Obama, according to White’s source, believes that being gay isn’t a choice, and homosexuality is no more immoral than heterosexuality. It’s true; deal with it. If you don’t like gay marriage or abortion, then don’t have one. I didn’t choose to be straight; I just am. At 6, my straight mother didn’t infect me with heterosexuality.

Regardless, some of the most kind and responsible people I know are gay. Obama’s positions are refreshing, and not even slightly distressing. If anything, these positions are overdue in our country.

White’s Christian charity doesn’t forgive someone for being honest about making and learning from mistakes of youth – unless you are a Republican. Bush refuses to talk about his drug use before 1974 (specifically cocaine), but he does talk about smoking weed and serious alcohol abuse. That didn’t disqualify him from the presidency – twice.

The entirety of the Kent State body should be insulted from White’s misleading and pathetic attempt at persuasion and logic (which is the equivalent of an angry, overly-emotional pre-teen).

Greg Golden

Senior archaeology major

Dear editor,

I applaud Matthew White who, by illuminating presidential candidate Barack Obama’s voting record, has reinforced my firm belief that the junior senator is best suited to be the next commander in chief.

Thanks to you Matthew, and not Kal Penn, whom I did not know by name, I will be voting for Obama. Voters shouldn’t base their decisions on celebrity sponsorship, and it’s rather arrogant and condescending to assume that they do; we all know how well Chuck Norris is bringing out the vote.

Voters shouldn’t base decisions strictly on divisive fringe issues such as abortion and gay rights either. While these issues do have some importance, they work to distract voters and politicians and pit them against one another when they should be working together to find solutions to issues that effect us all, like the failing economy, global warming, Iraq and health care. Obama’s voting record on those divisive issues, however, does show that he is more willing to stand up and respect human rights rather than placate to a narrow-minded constituency of xenophobic homophobes who are delusional in their belief that if more people had guns we’d be safer, despite the recent atrocities at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University in which both shooters had purchased their weapons legally.

Your attempt, Mr. White, at trying to portray Obama as a baby killing, child endangerer who wants to take away guns to give to terrorists and whom even liberals should fear, has well … bombed like Iraq. The only people you’ve managed to chase away are the ones you’ve already ran away because Obama’s middle name is “Hussein.” That’s right “Hussein.” Like Saddam Hussein. Barrack Hussein Obama. Run.

Casey Hill

Kent State alumnus

Dear editor,

This in response to Vanessa Opoku’s column in Monday’s Stater.

Opoku’s forum contribution is a fascinating example of confused access to scripture, holy or otherwise. Her claim that one can know what is only known to God by merely believing in this very “only” is false. If we invoke God by claiming access to what only he can truly know, we can measure our “standing true” by nothing but our very own standards; hence, the “righteous,” as in Opoku’s case, become the outspokenly self-righteous.

Exclusively in this context, then, makes her lamenting that “only” the non-(self)-righteous are so terribly judgmental any sense. If the “others” (non-believers, anti-Christians and otherwise God-less) understood why they can’t know how only we (the true believers) can know, they would be much less judgmental by Opoku’s own standards. In her so-inspired

approach, the “others” are true bigots only because they ignore Opoku’s God-given ability to know their judgment in her very own words. Where this kind of aggressive (or preemptive!) misunderstanding leads is known to more than Opoku’s God- stricken mind can imagine.

Why the Stater would allow such trite and true confessions hit the campus waves remains as mysterious as Opoku’s judgmental relationship with God.

Frank Rosen

Doctoral candidate of English/LRSP