Obvious link between social work and socialism I have two problems with the opinions expressed in the March 17 opinion page.
First, in The Firing Line "Bitten by the social work dog," Michael Costanzo acts as if it is some mystery as to why social workers and those that study such things are typically Marxist sympathizers. Throughout the history of the U.S. we have watched as charities and free market capitalism failed the poor of this country. It wasn't until FDR stepped up and introduced some mildly socialist policies that the government even began caring about the poor at all. So the majority of people that care about the poor enough to actually become social workers typically realize how ridiculous "non-liberal solutions" are, as they have been proven wrong historically. Realize that the government is the only entity big enough and far-reaching enough to solve the poverty problem. That in itself is socialistic, so deal with it.
Second, Daniel Earnest again tries to pass off as journalism his idiotic opinions and blatant disregard for facts ("John McCain can win with the ladies"). He calls the war in Iraq and Afghanistan a war to liberate women. If these wars were succeeding, then they would be liberating women. But instead, because they were ill-planned, these wars have killed or made refugees of thousands of women. What will McCain say about those women? What will he say about the thousands of innocent civilian bystanders who have been killed by our private armies (that are not held accountable) and the hundreds of suicide bombers we have helped spawn and motivate? If my memory is correct, the Taliban is gaining ground again, and death squads roam Iraq freely, implementing even stricter Islamic law and vigilante justice. So if by saying "liberating" Earnest means "killing, allowing others to kill or making them live in a place where they are constantly scared they will be killed," then yes, we are liberating the women of Iraq and Afghanistan. Just yesterday, a female suicide bomber killed 42 people in what was "one of the most secure perimeters in Iraq," according to The New York Times. Is she being liberated or doing the liberating, Daniel? Charles Allen Government sophomore Article Reference Link
Earnest hypocrisy In response to "John McCain can win with the ladies," March 17: Did anyone bother to mention to Daniel Earnest that there were no "islamofascists" in Iraq before we invaded? The two countries harboring most of these so-called "islamofascists" are our allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Someone really should tell him that invading Iraq has dramatically increased the power of Iran in the region and that Americans are sick of the war in Iraq that should never have been started.
I suppose Earnest would have a conniption if he were to realize there's little difference between the "islamofascists" and conservative fundamental Christians like himself. Both worship the God of Abraham and try to force people who don't believe in their God to live according to the rules set forth in their holy books. Welcome to hypocracy, Daniel. How do you like it?
Mark Phillips Biochemistry senior Article Reference Link
Be the first to comment on this article!