Dear Generation,
I’m a little confused. You guys say that you’ve been the student voice since 1984, but the magazine is on Volume 23. If I did my math correctly, shouldn’t you guys be on Volume 22? Just wondering. Otherwise, I love Generation.
Generation = Sex.
Thanks,
Brad Loliger
UB Student
Brad,
In the fall of 1999, our magazine was on track in its sixteenth volume. But then, the next semester during the spring of 2000, under the editorial control of Joshua Korman, the magazine jumped to Volume 17 mid-semester. We’re not exactly sure why this happened, but Associate Editor Jacob Drum and I have a theory: it simply slipped Korman’s mind because he was occupied with other things. Generation was no longer his bag—in the next year, he would begin his long and illustrious career at SA, where he started the SA newsletter, Visions. So yeah, we should be on Volume 22. Our bad. But let’s not speak of this ever again, starting… now.
Keep reading,
Christopher Ahearn
Editor in Chief
Dear Generation,
Reading Fabio Albertin’s article in the last issue has actually reinforced my belief in liberalism. He refers to half the U.S. population as “parasites” because they disagree with him. Somebody please get Fabio a straight jacket.
Sincerely,
James Bonanno
UB Student
Dear Generation,
I wanted to say thank you. The press endlessly reported on the wisdom of waiting a day before announcing that the vice-president shot a man in the face. There was a better tackle point in the fact that Dick Cheney, the #2 guy in the party of personal responsibility, was fucking around with a shotgun. His carelessness led to a man being shot because he didn’t take the time to check his mark and his backstop. Your magazine was the first place I saw anything like “Be sure of your target and what is beyond it before you pull the trigger; know identifying features of the game you hunt.” Sure it’s a personal matter between the Cheneys and the Whittingtons, but it says something about how the Veep conducts himself. A gun is a very powerful thing. I believe they are necessary and every citizen should own at least one, but that power naturally comes with a responsibility. Symbolically, this shows what care he gives to awesome power. If he can’t control a 28-gague shotgun (by the way, 28-gauge shotguns are made for women and eight-year-old boys), how is he expected to control this glorious federal government of ours? You deserve credit for being one of the few to bring out a relevant point.
Good job,
Don Stillwagon
UB Student
Dear Generation,
This is in response to last week’s opinion in "Your Student Voice" condemning liberalism, submitted by Fabio Albertin. After reading this, I felt compelled to respond, as most of the major points in the argument presented were fundamentally wrong , and lacking in logic as well as substance.
It was stated that "Liberals with moral values, basically Democrats with true Christian faith, seem to be very hard to find." This statement implies that only Christians possess moral values, which is an incredibly narrow minded view...there many people who follow religions other than Christianity, or who are in fact not religious at all, who possess as strong moral values as any devout Christian.
Another quote: "They believe that "gay marriage" is a valid concept, and that one can support it..." I challenge anyone to devise a concise, logical argument against same-sex marriage WITHOUT using the following words: 'God,' 'bible,' 'Christian,' or anything else related to religion, because America is not, in fact, a theocracy, and as difficult as it may be to believe, not everyone follows the Christian faith.
"They believe one can be a liberal and still be a Christian." Well last time I checked, religious affiliation and political affiliation were two separate things. Separation of church and state, anyone?
"Ignore parts of the truth that one does not like." Often true, but since when is that quality limited to those with a liberal political affiliation?
"Instinct to side with our enemies..." So anyone who criticizes American government is siding with terrorists now? Whatever happened to free speech and individual thought? Supporting your country, or being a true American, does not mean mindless acceptance of every decision and statement the leaders of our country make as correct. That mindset is the reason people like Hitler were able to rise to power (no, I'm not comparing America to Nazi Germany or Bush to Hitler, simply showing what happens when citizens don't think for themselves).
"Cringe at a display of our flag." I honestly don't know where you got that one. Has Michael Moore recently released an anti-flag documentary that I wasn't aware of? I am not, nor do I know any liberals who are, opposed to the display of the American flag. Furthermore, I fail to see what flag display has to do with liberalism or conservatism.
There are a few more points I could destroy: however, I will conclude, as I am aware of the space restrictions in the event this is published in Generation. I do commend the writer for your ability to write well: unfortunately, mere writing is of little use if it is used to support an otherwise weak argument. Next time, I recommend that you back up your opinions with something of substance, and include some original ideas instead of simply restating what countless other conservatives already have.
Sincerely,
Eric Primus
UB Student
An Open Letter to Fabio Albertin
I have listened to the assertions of liberals and conservatives, regarding one another, for far too long, and after last week’s opinion piece I finally felt obligated to say something. Apparently Fabio Albertin believes that conservatives, and only conservatives, are pillars of morality, true patriots and the only people in America that make any significant contributions to society. Not only that, he even refers to liberals as, “domestic enemies” and “parasites”. To that I say, Fabio, you are an idiot. Now let’s have a look at why.
First of all, moral values and religious beliefs are separate entities, and (gasp) can even be mutually exclusive. The fact is, religion often breeds fanaticism and violence, neither of which I would consider moral values. Yet such is often the effect when people become convinced that they are in possession of some divine authority, e.g. the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition (http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm). Second, it is quite simple to establish a set of moral values independent of any religion. I’d even be willing to bet that most people are familiar with such a system. It goes a bit like this: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Sound familiar? By implementing that logic, one could easily come to the conclusion that murder, theft, violence, lying and many other things are wrong or immoral. Hence, belief in God is not a prerequisite to morality, and saying that “liberals with moral values, basically Democrats with true Christian faith, seem to be very hard to find” is incredibly ignorant and elitist.
There is one point that I do not contest, and that is that liberals ignore certain facts so as to advance their beliefs. However, conservatives are just as guilty. In fact, a recent study concluded that staunch party members from both sides, as Fabio so eloquently put it, “ignore parts of the truth one does not like or feel comfortable with,” (http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060124_political_decisions.html). While this particular study, don’t worry I’ll include references, dealt exclusively with politicians, it is fair to say that the results apply to anyone that has an interest in how to interpret certain things, including members of a certain religion.
Religious text can be interpreted selectively by atheists and theists alike. Let’s not forget that, according to Mr. Albertin, liberals believe “being religious is alright so long as the Bible passages on homosexuality and other immoral behavior are ignored.” Now I’m no theology major, but I believe that Mark 9:43 is fairly straightforward: if your hand causes you to sin then cut it off. It’s interesting how many Christians I’ve met that openly admit to sinning, yet have both hands, both feet, both eyes, and no slaves, despite several passages indicating indifference toward, or even approval of slavery (Exodus 21:20, Peter 2:18) (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/slavery.html). I find it fascinating that Christians, or conservatives, ignore such explicit commands while at the same time accuse liberals of ignoring passages on homosexuality, which are scarce and vague at best, nonexistent at worst.
My final argument has to do with the statement that liberals side with the enemy, a claim like all the rest that was completely unsubstantiated, and are treasonous. Apparently the founding fathers are even rolling over in their graves because of these liberals. Lest we forget that the founding fathers themselves were dissatisfied with the King of England, committed treason and created a government that is considered by many to be the finest form of government the world has ever known. However, at the time of its creation, the Constitution was only meant to be temporary, a model to be improved upon (Made in America by Bill Bryson).
Ideally the Constitution should be criticized openly by politicians and citizens concerned with improving our government, but instead liberals and conservatives are content to argue about which is the superior party. While this piece was primarily a response to Fabio Albertin’s piece, I wouldn’t consider myself a liberal. In fact I believe that the actual differences between both groups are so insignificant as to be negligible. One of the primary arguments for adoption of the Constitution was that there would be so many different factions within the country that it would be impossible for any one group to take control. Well, we’re down to two, and each one has something to sell. Perhaps P.J. O’Rourke said it best, “The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it,” (http://www.workinghumor.com/quotes/parties.shtml).
Sincerely,
James Myers
Dear Fabio Albertin,
It is evident from your letter that you are pretty well spoken. However, the content of the letter makes you look like an idiot. I would like to say something to all "conservatives" and "liberals" alike: STOP GENERALIZING. Honestly, it isn't possible to take each political issue one at a time? In your letter all you do is generalize about what a "liberal" is; not that it doesn't happen the other way, though, as liberals often generalize about what a "conservative" is as well. This, to me, is what is so absurd about having political parties. One cannot be pro-laissez faire but not give a damn about what homosexuals do? One cannot be pro-taxes but go to church every Sunday? Because it seems to me that this is what the two parties are telling me (obviously, these are generalizations as well, but I'm simply trying to paint a picture). Basically, here is my point: FUCK POLITICAL PARTIES. Why is it that you need to call yourself "liberal" or "conservative," Democrat or Republican? You can't have a separate opinion on each and every issue, but need to just go with the party line? This is simply the message that I am sent when I hear this asinine bickering back and forth.
Sincerely,
M. Peters
UB Student
P.S.- I am well aware that I am not talking about ALL liberals or conservatives, just the extremes; don't take offense if you are one of those who does not generalize in the way that I pointed out.
