Letter on Ch‡vez full of opinion, short on facts
In his letter to the Wildcat on Tuesday, Mike Sousa calls the Student Objectivist Society and the College Republicans "liars" and "double-speaky." Mr. Sousa's letter is full of emotion but short on fact. First, the use of vague terms like "double-speaky" lends no credence to Mr. Sousa's attack. He fails to specify what he means by "double-speaky," instead assuming readers will understand a negative connotation without any clear explanation. Second, Mr. Sousa chooses to ignore a number of facts, preferring instead to call names. It is documented that Ch‡vez and his followers participated in and threatened violent action against business owners and non-union farm workers. Mr. Sousa denies this, but then goes on to imply that if Ch‡vez and his followers were involved in violence (wink wink), then such action was justified. Mr. Sousa then accuses Ch‡vez detractors of being pro-violence: Why else would the SOS support U.S. action against Iraq? Using this reasoning, Mr. Sousa implies the SOS has no right to denounce Ch‡vez's use of force ÷ not that Ch‡vez condoned or initiated the use of force against anyone (wink wink). Those opposing Ch‡vez's ideology would argue there is a clear difference between Ch‡vez's violent scare tactics against free people and U.S. military action against a belligerent country (i.e., Iraq) with a repressive dictatorial regime and a capacity to threaten free countries. Third, Mr. Sousa asserts that because only six persons were present to protest the renaming of the Economics building, versus the hundreds there to celebrate it, the six must be wrong. Right and wrong are not determined by the majority. Was Rosa Parks wrong on Dec. 1, 1955, when she refused to give up her bus seat for a white man? She was one standing against the majority of millions ÷ but she was right.
[Read article]