France riot example of socialism gone wrong

Dear Editor,

Oh sweet irony. Who could forget when the far-left on campus labeled the Katrina disaster a capitalist problem. That if only we had an economic system built on workers’ rights and equality, lives would be spared. Who could forget when they denounced the capitalist Bush for his mistreatment of blacks in New Orleans? Well it looks like disaster has struck again, only this time it’s the leftist paradise of France that’s in chaos. You have to admit, it’s funny seeing youths on campus advertising socialism, when it’s youths in France that are rioting against economic conditions brought on by socialism.

France, after all, is a welfare state that is notorious for granting government handouts to its citizens. For years they have granted their workers short work weeks and full early retirement pensions. Because of this, the business community has little interest in starting new businesses and creating new jobs. France, in all its socialist glory, had only created 4 million jobs compared to the 57 million created by the “evil” United States.

And like any good socialist state, government spending accounts for nearly half of the GDP, according to The Wall Street Journal. France’s government pork would make George W. Bush and Lyndon B. Johnson jealous.

Jacques Chirac doesn’t care about black people! I’m surprised so many leftists like him when his government for years has turned a deaf ear to the plight of the immigrant Muslims. They even banned Muslim scarves from being worn in public. The government doesn’t even see them as legitimate citizens. It looks like socialism isn’t the answer for ending racism and bigotry.

The simple fact is institutional racism always will exist regardless of the type of economic system. This is why we must reject welfare programs that will only burden young workers, and encourage the government to practice fiscal conservatism.

Michael J. Kapronica

Senior political science major

Alito’s race does not qualify him for Court

Dear Editor,

Reading the Forum page this semester, I’ve come to expect a certain amount of ill-conceived opinions and puzzling statements. However, your Nov. 8 “Our View” column praising President Bush’s nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court struck a particular chord with me.

Specifically, the statement, “the fact that Alito is a white Catholic male left no doubt that the president’s decision was made not on quotas for women or minorities but rather on experience and proven philosophical credentials,” is shockingly sexist and racist.

Intended or not, the implication of your statement is that by the virtue of Alito’s gender and race, he must be the best one for the job. Furthermore, you seem to suggest that had President Bush’s nominee not been a white Catholic male, the editorial board would have concerns as to the actual qualifications of the nominee.

Had it ever occurred to you that there indeed may have been a quota for the seat Alito is nominated for? Would it ever cross your mind that maybe he got the nod because of his race?

Of course not. The kind of thinking your editorial board exhibits is typical of people who have bought into decades of conservative rhetoric and language that is meant to undermine the general perception of professional and intellectual ability in women and ethnic minorities in the post-civil/equal rights era. Perceptions that extend from Washington to places of business across the country. Perceptions that in Kent, Ohio, assure several young journalists that the president’s Supreme Court nominee must be the best qualified nominee because he is a white man.

Mark Ridgill

Senior advertising major