Fuming over pot rulingre: Feds’ appeal keeps pot issue smouldering (Jan. 7)If our government had an ounce respectability left it would let this one go! Don’t bother wasting anymore of our tax dollars fighting an issue that they refused to fix (properly), and what’s worse is going after a 16-year old Canadian boy. Sixteen happens to be the age that the Senate’s first recommendation stated should be the legal age.So I say #@$@ or get off our pot!Ken RimmerAnti-empire strikes backre: Selective outrage (Jan. 16)I’m writing this in response to “Selective Outrage” (Jan 16), a critique of an event at Victoria College called “A Better World is Possible: Empire and Resistance—at Home and Abroad.” Summarizing our publicity posters as denunciations of “Imperialist American Tyranny”—nicely capitalized to give it an air of knee-jerk, regurgitated jargon, and put within quotation marks so as to suggest the fabricated quotation came from us—the writer goes on to document our “selective outrage.” We focused on the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq, but didn’t even mention the crimes of official bad guys such as North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il or Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. After all, North Korea is making weapons of mass destruction, and Hugo Chavez diverted US$114 million from the national bank! According to U.S. officials, North Korea might be able to increase its nuclear arsenal to 6 weapons within the next few years. However, the United States already has more than 10,000 nuclear weapons, and the U.S. remains the only country to have dropped an atomic bomb on a civilian centre (they occasionally threaten to do so again). Furthermore, they have proved abundantly willing to use non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction. These include cluster bombs that shower areas several football fields large with metal fragments, cutting any exposed flesh to pieces. They also include fuel-air explosives (FAEs) whose “pressure effects,” according to CIA reports, “approach those produced by low-yield nuclear weapons,” as well as Tomahawk missiles, multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), and assorted other instruments of technology-intensive warfare. Constraints of time and space prohibit me from directly responding to all of the writer’s critiques, or to his contribution to the smear campaign against the government of Hugo Chavez. But I must ask: why does Venezuela’s diverting of public resources anger him more than the average of 17 political killings that occur every day in neighboring Colombia? Why does North Korea’s nuclear program bother him more than the United States’ continuous bombing of country after country? Restricting his comments to officially-endorsed subject matter may be convenient for him, and I hate to deride his patriotic sensibilities. But we might eventually want to go beyond CNN-style political analysis.Daniel MaloyYo, war sucks, dudeI would like to applaud the efforts of those who organized and participated in the recent anti-war demonstrations. I was not yet a teenager during the first Gulf War, but I remember when my family in Israel was bombarded by scuds, thanks to the West’s war for oil. Now the world faces the same prospect yet again. The West as a whole has never desired peace in the Middle East lest the peoples of the region form a united front powerful enough to block the undertakings and ambitions of the large imperialist powers, such as the U.S. and Britain. The Western powers have always used a strategy of divide and conquer in the Middle East, keeping the peoples of the region apart, whether it be by drawing artificial colonial-style borders or partitioning lands against the will of the people. This latest attempt to instigate conflict against Iraq is just another attempt to tighten the West’s grip on the Middle East. Those who have demonstrated against this recent surge of Western imperialism show great candour, and I’m sure they would agree that the peoples of the Middle East are entitled to live in freedom—something the U.S. government preaches, but apparently has not been practicing lately. Jason ShviliRocco rocksre: Between a Rocco and a hard place (Jan. 30)I would like to address the vote of non-confidence against Rocco Kusi-Achampong by the SAC board of directors, or should I refer to them as “the CFS.”In reading Sondi Bruner’s article, and absorbing what Ms. Artful-Dodger had to say about Kusi-Achampong, it was clear to me that she regrets voting for him because he does not share her left-wing mandate, and because he had the nerve and the wits to speak up and vote no to joining the CFS. Rocco has a long list of accomplishments under his belt. He was elected under a clear and ambitious mandate, which many deemed impossible. However, he has indeed provided this University with a user-friendly online opt-out option, in addition to the long sought-after discounted TTC Metropass. So let me ask the 31 members of SAC who voted no what exactly they’re complaining about. If they are not happy with a president who has his own opinions, who believes in a fair and free referendum, and who actually does what he says he’s going to do; then I suggest they change schools, and perhaps look into finding a country with a not-so-democratic regime. Rocco tries to represent a majority of students and has done a phenomenal job as SAC president. Does the board of directors think one of them could do a better job? Without the backing of the CFS and their not-so legitimate funding formula, all they have left is a leader with a wacky last name.I am simply one voice in a sea of students who is pleased with Rocco Kusi-Achampong’s term as SAC President. If presented with a referendum, I am confident that many more voices will be heard.Laryssa Waler
