Liberal bumper stickers dividing too

Dillon Fishman yesterday, while decrying those who believe that longstanding social problems can be solved with simple formulas, posits his own simple formula in defiance of oversimplification. The unadorned formula reads, in its simplicity, that the key is to start an educated dialogue, presumably in opposition to those cretinous uneducated dialogues.

However, one must question exactly what an educated dialogue entails. Clearly, bumper stickers don't make the grade, at least not the one that has Mr. Fishman so indignant. But what of the predominance of those jewels of dialogue and sloganeering which adorn the bumpers at the opposing end of the political spectrum? Some future classics are: Re-Defeat Bush in 2004, Defend America; Defeat Bush, or that paradigm of feminist virtue - The only Bush I trust is my own. Let us not overlook those venerable classics: Friends don't let friends vote Republican, and naturally a smattering of obligatory quotes from Bob Marley, Gandhi and Chief Seattle, all have earned their places in the thoughtful discourse hall of fame. But perhaps the greatest ornament to our culture and society, albeit an example of contemporary interchange, is the artful: Fuck Bush, with swastikas taking the place of both U's. Truly some thought provoking and educated dialogue in these declarations; undoubtedly they represent the vanguard of collaboration and needed change.

In the end it seems that Mr. Fishman's baneful bumper sticker is more sophisticated that one would have thought. The simplistic rhetoric and confused thinking therein seem to be the cause of additional confused thinking and oversimplification at the hand of the author. The consequence is an author bordering on apoplexy, and guilty of the same transgressions he accuses others of committing.

Patrick McNamara
journalism senior

McKale Backpack policy sexual discrimination

Like a few lucky students, I was fortunate enough to score basketball tickets. However, I was not so lucky in scoring a nighttime Tuesday and Thursday class, both semesters, which has prevented me from going to some basketball games.

Because of this, I was ecstatic to hear that the USC basketball game last Thursday started at 8:30 p.m. After class was over, I rushed to the stadium from Harvill only to find out that they would not let me in. Apparently, backpacks are not allowed.

Never having heard about this policy, I read the back of the ticket and it does clearly state "No containers, bottles, cans, bags, or backpacks are allowed," and I felt I got beat. However, I noticed that women could bring their purses into the stadium. This led me to consider, is it fair to allow women to bring in purses while not allowing men to bring in backpacks?

The answer clearly is no. A purse, or a handbag, is a bag. To allow women to carry purses without allowing bookbags is nothing short of sexual discrimination.

Some women would claim that because they carry important items like tampons in their purses they should be allowed, but this argument is flawed. First off, once inside the game, I saw plenty of women with "purses" that were just as large as my bookbag. Unless they were carrying a year's supply of feminine products, they obviously brought in items that were not a necessity to have. Next, in my backpack, I had a pair of reading glasses and an inhaler. Why should I be forced to put these items in my pocket and women not forced to carry around theirs?

The clear message is that rules are rules and we must abide. That is, of course, unless you are a woman.

Josh Garber
economics junior