Pasternack should move on
We both appreciated the article, "Students may pay in Pasternack lawsuit" from the Sept. 6 issue of The Signal. That being said, we would also like to elaborate on this matter.
We have each been "busted" by both campus and local cops for drinking underage. And when that happens, the most you can do is suck it up and let it go.
Mr. Pasternack, according to your quote in an article in the Aug. 30 issue of The Signal, you say that your dismissal would "disenfranchise the students of the College to elect representatives to SGA."
The only disenfranchisement has been committed by you, Mr. Pasternack. Those who indeed voted for you were sold out for a single night of partying and underage drinking.
You should be ashamed and resign yourself to disgrace and defeat. We believe Christine Cullen, the elected executive vice president, will be an amazing executive president, and, despite your comments, that is why she was elected for this position.
Your time is somewhat appreciated, because we know it is costing us (a.k.a. the student body) to have you read this, as we are sure your lawyer is at your side. It is funny, because at best this lawsuit will be settled (out of court) after you even graduate. Good luck serving the student body while you are not a part of it.
Paul Carcich and Kevin Shields
Jesus is just all right with Lee
This letter is a response to Scott Blair's piece, "War in Iraq contradicts Jesus' Words" from the Sept. 6 issue of The Signal. Mr. Blair's assertion that the War in Iraq is contrary to Biblical teachings is misguided and unfortunate.
I will leave aside most of the criticism about the left's failure to understand the struggle in which we are engaged and the nature of our enemy, though these things are made abundantly clear by Mr. Blair's column.
First of all, we live in a nation that, while guided by Christian tradition and protected by Providence, is not a seat of Christendom, but rather based on the sanctity of the Constitution. (It is worth noting that this is unlike Islam, under which the state is God's kingdom, and all Islam is one state - a Quranic notion that extremists have used to advance their ideologies of terror. Although this notion has been weakened in recent centuries, one need only look at the sacred writings and the tradition of the Caliphate.)
Is it not possible to have different rules of conduct for individuals and states?
Democrats like Mr. Blair approve this all the time: The state is allowed to seize the assets of private citizens (taxes) and possess arms prohibited to the populace (all firearms if some liberals have their way). The same fallacious analogy attempted to say that Jesus supported socialism.
Books could be (and probably have been) written about the issue, but let it suffice for this letter that there is a difference between a command to give to the poor and saying the government should (or can) seize private assets and redistribute them.
The injunctions to turn the other cheek and love your enemies are personal injunctions. Christ does not suggest that the Romans simply let the Barbarian hordes take control.
His command to "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Luke 20:25) suggests that the affairs of a nation are not to be conflated with the affairs of the individual.
This does not mean that a nation cannot be built on Christian principles. But it also does not mean that a nation cannot defend itself. Mr. Blair's argument would imply that Christians should have opposed the struggle against Nazi Germany!
Secondly, Jesus was not simply surrendering to his earthly captors because he abhors violence. He surrendered because He was sent to this planet for that primary purpose: to willfully die on the cross, and, crucially, to rise again in triumph over sin and death (Hallelujah!).
Another oversight Mr. Blair makes is fairly common to those who have only a topical understanding of Christianity: This is the fact that Jesus is God, the God of the universe, creator and preserver, the Alpha and Omega.
A cursory glance at the Old Testament will show that God certainly has no aversion to war. Jesus did bring a new order along with the new covenant in His blood. But this does not mean that God changed His mind about the matter.
It might be said that the Old Testament wars were of God's people against outsiders and infidels, of sorts. The glory and wonder of Christ's mission is that "at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ" (Ephesians 2:12-13).
It is true that Jesus was not sent as a political or martial leader (again in stark contrast to the prophet of Islam), but as a spiritual leader. And this is why He enjoins His disciples with this: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword" (Matthew 10:34).
S. Lee Whitesell II
New swipe policy is ineffective
Is anyone really being fooled by this new 24-hour swipe policy? It seems obvious to me that the administration felt like it needed some tangible policy to counter the outlandish claims that it was negligent concerning campus security.
Instead of taking the time to establish a worthwhile and effective solution, however, the powers that be quickly opted for a cheap alternative and rushed this superficial 24-hour swipe policy into effect.
I mean, if an individual wants to enter a dorm, all he or she has to do is wait for the never-ending flow of students in and out of the dormitories.
I understand the school must be undergoing substantial pressure with a possible lawsuit from John Fiocco's parents, but 24-hour swipe, to put it simply, is useless.
The only thing it seems efficient in doing is annoying me when I now have to adjust all the books I'm carrying just to retrieve my ID card from my pocket. Eating in Eickhoff should never have to be this challenging.
Anthony Vita
Flush the crappy comics
Can someone explain to me who in their right mind thinks the comics in The Signal are even remotely amusing? I don't even think they can be considered comics; I could shove a dull crayon up my ass and squat over a piece of paper and come up with something more coherent and amusing than what this newspaper passes off as a comic.
Who the fuck finds these things amusing? Is there some demographic that I must have missed? I didn't know we had a large population of bumbling retards at this school.
It's bad enough that the entire paper is mindless drivel centered around the fleeting hope that one day your poorly written article on the lack of toilet paper in the residence halls will garner you fame and fortune.
Get rid of the fucking comic section until someone with some semblance of intelligence and wit replaces the shuffling jizmop that makes the current comics.
The only time I ever read the comic section is when I am constipated because whenever I see those piss poor scribbles you pass off as drawings I get a terrible case of diarrhea.
If you don't know what to do with the empty space without those comics, I will gladly plant a steamy shit right in the middle of every newspaper printed. Consider it me giving back to the campus.
Andrew Spada
