Pacifists rejected, not
“˜silenced’
I would like to comment on Jenna Sutton’s claim
(“Patriotic war fever unjustly bars criticism,” April
18) that pacifists such as herself are being “systematically
silenced, ignored and punished” for their opinions.
Pacifists and other anti-war activists are not being silenced.
Significant newspapers such as The New York Times and The
Washington Post frequently publish anti-war editorials.
Sutton’s own column was clearly not
“silenced.”Â
Her arguments are not being silenced, but they are being
rejected in many quarters. The reason Sutton’s views are
being rejected is not because people are ignorant, but because they
are principled.
For instance, I reject pacifism because I know that every
government has a moral obligation to defend its citizens from harm.
The U.S. government was confronted by a country openly hostile to
us ““ that used to shelter our enemies and seeking weapons
posing a real threat to our security. Our government responded
accordingly.
I base my opinions on my philosophy, objectivism and its moral
code. Consequently, I do not reject pacifism out of ignorance. I
simply, and respectfully, disagree.
Robert Johnston Second-year, microbiology, immunology and
molecular genetics
GOP’s tax cuts irresponsible
While Republicans love to cite John F. Kennedy’s wartime
tax cut, they fail to mention one critical detail.
When JFK pushed for a tax cut, the top rate was at 91 percent
““ a result of emergency surtaxes leftover from World War II.
His cuts, enacted after his death, took that rate to a still strong
70 percent.
Current proposed tax cuts are not a response to overinflated
emergency surtaxes. With annual deficits nearing $300 billion, they
are dangerous and fiscally irresponsible.Adam Safran 1996
alumnus, Cal State University, Northridge