Letters to the Editor

Insults aren't what our country needs

I was disappointed with the opinion presented by my former hallmate, Steven Sucharski '06 in Friday's paper (''Prince' article shows paper's liberal bias,' Letter, Nov. 5), as I feel it epitomizes the primary problem with our political society both on campus and in the U.S. in general. I read The Daily Princetonian article to which he referred, and I disagree that the article had a liberal slant because of some liberal agenda being promoted by the writers of the 'Prince.' Rather, I feel the article effectively captured a general sentiment on campus following the election; the majority of students on campus backed Kerry, and there was certainly very deep disappointment — enough, I would argue, to merit a story.

Insults, even when "merited," achieve nothing in our campus's political life. I am sick of people on campus complaining about the "liberal media" or the "conservative media," which individuals on both sides do incessantly. These comments serve only to divide us further and make it less and less possible for our states to truly be united.

I think that if these next four years are to truly be years of unification, the slandering and insulting should be abandoned in favor of dialogue and language that promotes a sense of togetherness that we share in this wonderful country. Syon Bhanot '06

No tolerance for illegal immigrants

Regarding 'Immigration officers raid local apartment' (Nov. 5):

Why did you fail to emphasize that the "immigration cheats" who were arrested by Federal authorities in Princeton are here illegally? The fear that Latino activists claim is spreading is nonsense; if you are here legally you cannot be deported and have nothing to fear. Of course, these activists don't mention that fact, because they are trying to blur the distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

A genuinely principled society has no tolerance for cheating, regardless of whether it's on a tax form, a welfare application, a school exam (take note all you sympathetic Princeton professors!) or in immigration matters. Instead, Latinos should stop defending what is legally and morally indefensible and work on more productive ways of helping their community. Mark A. Mendlovitz Beverly Hills, Calif.

Bush reelection shows triumph of fear

The reelection of George W. Bush is disconcerting for a multitude of reasons, the least of those being the fact that the country is now faced with a president who controls both houses of Congress with substantial majorities and the fate of several possible positions on the federal Supreme Court, and he has now been relieved of the threat of not being reelected. There is no telling what consequences the actions taken on Election Day will bring.

But what truly concerns me is the way in which our president was reelected. Yes; I fear for the immediate security and economic stability of our country, but I fear more for the growing trend in voting across this country that points to intellectual malaise and moralistic politics. George Bush won reelection on his moral battle with America.

When asked by exit pollers about the issues that decided their vote on election day, the voters responding that Iraq, the economy, healthcare and other tangible issues that face our country today voted by an overwhelming majority for John Kerry. Bush did not win this election because of his war in Iraq but in spite of it. Those said moral issues and the war on terrorism were their most important issues, both intangible ideals driven by emotion and fear, voted overwhelmingly for Bush. It is clear that the majority of voters in America want their president to be more intent on suppressing gay rights and blocking major health care advances than on governing the country. Adam S. Baron '08