Letters to the editor
Immoderate path for GOP
First and foremost, in response to Cumming's "Republican actions alienating core supporters" in the May 7 issue, Rush Limbaugh does not speak for the Republican Party, nor is he anymore the voice for it than Keith Olbermann is for the Democrats. Limbaugh represents a voice within the Republican Party, not the voice. By default they are militant partisans, but aren't all of us who vote for a certain candidate partisan too?
In the spirit of bipartisanship let's not forget that as many of the regulatory systems in place can be attributed to Bush and Co., as can be traced to Carter, Frank and Dodd. This does not excuse the Bush administration, as was evident in conservative abstention in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Furthermore, let's not use extramarital affairs to discredit an entire party; Cummings easily forgets Hart, Clinton and now Edwards' "misjudgments." While they do indeed undermine the message of family values, these matters should not be directly attributed to either party.
There is indeed a battle for what the Republican Party should stand for, but the solution cannot be found in moderation. Moderation gave Republicans Bush senior, Dole and recently McCain. One cannot form a party around moderates; they do not offer clear lines in the sand.
Republicans and media pundits who call for a more inclusive and moderate GOP are essentially asking them to act more like Democrats.
In order to return to electoral success, the Republican Party must reject the McCain "maverick" philosophy, which only serves to confuse the Party message and push away its base.
It is not surprising that the number-one selling book in the country for the past 6 weeks is Mark Levin's "Liberty & Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto".
A third "Conservative Party" is not the option; rather, a reinvigorated Republican Party that adheres to its ideas and embraces its base will reestablish divided government as the Founders intended.
Timor Brik
Political Science '10
A grammar revolution
In a letter to the editor titled "Grammar fail" in the April 30 issue, I noted a tragically common grammar blunder. While imploring readers to take advantage of the ever-wonderful spell check to avoid embarrassing errors, the author enthusiastically encouraged, "Proofread people!"
I consider myself a grammar enthusiast, but this terribly ironic call for grammatical diligence killed me a little on the inside. As much as I enjoy proofreading, I imagine it would be quite impossible to proofread a person, let alone people.
One cannot detect a person's grammatical inaccuracies simply by looking at him or her.
Omitting this essential comma changes the sentence from a sound piece of advice to an absurd suggestion. This situation is much like the one brought up in the original letter --the one about the panda's comma-induced massacre. While this situation is markedly less violent, it is no less important. I hold no ill feelings toward the author of the letter -- he got his point across -- and I agree with the message he was sending. In fact, I propose that we make this a veritable grammar revolution.
Let us take up our grammar guides and AP Stylebooks, sing the "Conjunction Junction" song from "School House Rock!" and make our fifth grade grammar teachers proud.
Proofread, people!
Laura Beck
Communication '11