Division will always exist in America\nI am writing in response to Brian Janosch's column "The times they aren't a-changin" (Nov. 11). Mr. Janosch claims that the reason George W. Bush was re-elected was because of the American public's "fear." He explains that, while watching the election, all he could see is a nation that was afraid of "moving forward." \nConveniently, he excludes himself and all the non-Bush voters from this category, insinuating that only Bush supporters are in the wrong. He then states that "... we stand, right now, as a nation divided. Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals." Is he theorizing that our nation is divided simply because of our political preferences rather than hatred, ignorance, and failure to comprehend one another? He further goes on to claim that the last time our country was divided, it took the tragedy of 9-11 to "create a nation that was indivisible." Really? Are we really a nation that is indivisible? The horrors of 9-11 are only three years old and yet each year, the "patriotism" displayed immediately after 9-11 continues to drop. Professional athletes do not circle the bases or charge the field with the American flag, the bumper stickers, shirts and signs associated with being patriotic are not seen nearly as frequently, and there has been the steady decline in the singing of "God Bless America" at certain athletic venues. Most importantly, the message of coming together as a nation has declined significantly since then. The fact is that this country was founded on division, has stood divided over time and will continue to stand divided as long as people sit around and complain about how divided our country is. \nThere will always be a certain level of division in this country. We cannot escape that. All we can do as individuals, regardless of who is in the office of the president, is embrace each other as human beings and celebrate the wonderful gift of the cultural, religious, racial and sexual diversity we each share with one another in this country and hope that people follow in those footsteps.\nAaron Goldsmith\nSenior
Defending an IDS columnist\nI know it's a little late now (but isn't everything on my side of the aisle now?), but after reading two rather scathing letters about Elisha Sauers, I feel compelled to write in her defense. Both letters I read seemed to think she was "crossing a line" or personally insulting Bush supporters. In regards to the first complaint, that is why it is called an opinion column. People are entitled not just to believe what they want, but to express it (within limits). Opinions are not only about eloquent arguments, but often about forceful delivery, as I believe the recent election has taught us.\nIn regards to the second point, I do not believe she was personally insulting Bush supporters, but simply pointing out what certain statistics appear to show. Yes, they were probably flawed -- all statistics are. But what is rather telling is that a majority of Bush supporters seemed to believe he was in favor of the Kyoto Protocol, the ICC and the land mines ban, when in fact he was publicly against all three. One of the very first public acts of the administration was to pull out of Kyoto, his opposition to the ICC was highly publicized, and while his opposition to the land mines ban was not as well-covered, it was mentioned in the "mainstream press," especially when his opposition was publicly announced, sometime into the war.\nThe point is not what Bush supporters think or don't think about these particular issues, nor whether they are stupid. The point is that the surveys referenced indicated that a large percentage of Bush voters were uninformed about the direction this country was taking, and intended to take, in the world.\nAs I ponder what these statistics might mean about people, and about the state of our country, I recall the words of Thomas Jefferson when he founded the University of Virginia: "Democracy's very existence depends on an educated electorate."\nJim White\nContinuing studies
