The Tribune

Re: “Why Gaza Remembrance Week misses the point” by Adam Winer (09.02.10) Mr. Winer seems to have entirely missed the point in believing that SPHR should be neutral in its display and presentation of speakers for the Gaza Remembrance event. When an entire population becomes the target of Israeli amunition and unjustified sanctions, then logically people have to stand up in defence of human rights and to lobby governments and intellectuals to stop the suffering of the Palestinian people.

I think the Financial Ethics Review Committee cares a lot about human rights, social justice, and environmental protection. I also think that the Israeli army and the Israeli government sometimes do things that are morally questionable, if not repugnant. However, I think that Wednesday’s motion is not primarily a function of anybody’s commitment to human rights, social justice, and environmental protection, but of condemning the State of Israel.

Re: “Right Minded: An offensive motion” by Brendan Steven (09.02.10) Columnist Brendan Steven makes an argument that the upcoming (as of this letter) General Assembly motion on discriminatory groups constitutes a vote on freedom of speech. However, his analysis is significantly misguided.

The singular noun “transparency” can mean many things. The quality of being clear and transparent is the most important. But this quality depends on the material’s capacity for allowing electromagnetic radiation to be transmitted. Materials that allow transmission in the range of human visibility are called transparent.

Re: “Pop Rhetoric: Fist-pumping IQs away” by Bianca Van Bavel (02.02.10) Dear Bianca Van Bavel, I’m writing in response to your article on Jersey Shore, MTV’s newest reality show. You seem to be upset that, as “young impressionable intellectuals,” we (speaking on behalf of non-closet Shore fans) have decided to spend some of our free time being entertained.

Foucalt you, Ricky. Re: “Piñata Diplmacy: James McGill – Turning in my grave” by Ricky Kreitner (22.09.09) What up, James McGill, Michel Foucault here (also conveniently undead for the time being). I am writing to clear up certain misconceptions you seem to have regarding my personal area of expertise: cultural studies.

Re: “Opting out of QPIRG” by Brendan Steven (26.1.10) If the groups conducting the QPIRG: Opt Out campaign would like to stay atop their high horses, they should request that students be able to opt out of funding their activities as well. My student fees support many opportunities of which I do not take advantage (e.

Re: “Letter to the Editor: Gaza Remembrance Week” (26.1.10) Jamal Daoud rightly notes that the one year anniversary of the Israeli operation in Gaza has passed. I would like to see McGill remember this anniversary by remembering the purpose of this operation: to eliminate the terrorist threat stemming from within Israel’s borders.

Re: “A disingenuous debate” by Max Silverman (26.1.10) Max Silverman is woefully misinformed as to the terms of the debate over health care here in the United States – as are most Canadians. While it might feel good to sneer about the American system of government being beholden to “corporate interests” (especially in the wake of the Citizens United case), can we all adopt a little nuance here and recognize that corporations have a spectrum of competing interests, not all of which align in perfect lockstep unison? The truth about the health care debate is that the insurance companies and HMOs were relatively cooperative early in the debate over health care reform.

Re: “That evaluation you requested” by Ricky Kreitner (19.01.10) Yes, Ricky, the world is that simple. Professors are desperately hanging on to the words of students so that they can “cater to [your] petty whims.” There’s no way that they might take some advice – “integrate the lectures more with the readings” or “spend more time on the anatomy section of the course and less on the functional part” – while disregarding that kid who never showed up’s advice to “like, slow way down in lecture.