Parties equally to blame for state of the U.S. economy

In response to Pat Takash’s opinion letter, “”Brewer, Republicans didn’t create Arizona’s Problem””: Pat Takash is only a third correct. Republicans share just as much of the blame of the state of the United States as the Democrats do. The two bourgeois parties will beg for your vote during campaign season, only to ignore the people after Election Day.

Takash’s arguments clearly show signs of a lack of research. The federal government has addressed the immigration issue but never against the corporate interest. The establishment of NAFTA and corporate coaxing of immigrants has brought about a huge surplus of illegal immigration. Takash also needs to see the documentary “”I.O.U.S.A.,”” which clearly explains why tax cuts do not increase revenue. Takash also makes the claim that Obama has increased the national debt by $4 trillion. However, the national debt has had its largest increases during the Regan administration. Although, the Democrats are just as responsible for removing welfare, engaging in warfare and diminishing the middle class. These two parties are corporately financed, resulting in practices that satisfy the corporate interest, which usually conflicts with the public interest.

Takash claims that this country was built on capitalism, but what he doesn’t realize it was almost destroyed by it as well. During the heart of the Great Depression, FDR had to introduce policies that allowed the government to intervene in the market, creating the minimum wage and other arrays of worker benefits, to avoid a rebellion from the growing populist movement. The last party to share the blame is the people for believing and voting for the two-faced parties that continuously act against the people’s interest. It is time to ditch these to capitalistic parities and support others that are not married to the corporate complex.

Elliot James Montgomery, Civil engineering senior

Fox News column rife with fallacies

I must confess that I find it highly disturbing when anyone, let alone a journalism student, believes that sources of media with which he or she disagrees are “”destructive to America.”” I subscribe to Oliver Wendell Holmes’ philosophy of the “”marketplace of ideas””, where media consumers are free to choose content from a variety media providers. Words may be offensive, perverse, etc. but not destructive.

Regardless, the column “”Fox News may be biased, but Obama should let it be”” contains three glaring errors:

Firstly, it is contradictory. For example, it exhorts Obama to avoid demeaning a news organization because “”the moment we stop questioning those in power, is the moment we lose control of this country to our government,”” which is a perfectly reasonable assertion, and acknowledges that “”nobody keeps the government more honest than Fox News”” and that “”the network is to be commended for it.”” Yet, concludes by describing Fox News as destructive to America. Is keeping the government honest destructive?

Secondly, it begs the question. It argues that “”it is common knowledge that Fox News in some capacity pushes the Republican agenda”” and that “”Fox News is not predicated on being objective.”” Proof please? Even an anecdote? Suffice it to say, any time you need to use the expressions “”it is common knowledge”” or “”no one is arguing,”” you have exited the realm of critical thought and entered the kingdom of vacuous babble.

Lastly, the article contains a glaring factual error, which leads me to believe the author never watches Fox News and is relying on such outfits as MediaMatters for insight. In it’s cursory list of “”colorful commentators””, it lists “”Bill O’Reilly, Nancy Grace, and Sean Hannity.”” Nancy Grace is, of course, a news fixture, but does not receive a paycheck from Fox News. Try CNN. I would expect a journalism student to know where well-known news commentators work. Oh well.

Andrew Burns, Aerospace engineering undergraduate