2008 Woodie Awards
Letter to the Editor: Political Nitpicking
Lynette Culpepper
Issue date: 10/29/04 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
I was distributed in reading his most recently published editorial article regarding the republican party trying to get back at Michael Moore. I found the article to be convoluted and childish. Politics is all about nitpicking, blurring the lines, and mudslinging. The Article was no exception to that.
It said that the republican party was trying to 'get back at Moore' (for making Fahrenheit 9/11) by getting him into trouble for allegedly bribing young people to vote with unusual prizes such as clean underwear, Top Ramen, dorm room etc. Well here's the truth of it all.
Did he break the law? Yes, he did. That means that he committed a crime. Although it seems petty to us and almost pointless to prosecute, no matter how little the crime someone commits, it's only right that the new law be enforced.
You wouldn't say to a person stealing a handheld television, "Oh, it's okay, it's really small and your stealing this small thing won't have much of an effect on us, so we won't prosecute" and then tell another someone who's stealing 50 big screen televisions, "Well, you do the crime you do the time," and expect it to be fair.
A white lie may be harmless but it's still a lie, and a fact may be slanted or taken out of context but it's still a fact, and so a petty crime is still a crime. He points his finger at the Republican Party and make accusations abut their intentions but all they did was enforce the law. They didn't blur the lines and just let it go. Is it wrong to enforce the law? Instead of pointing his finger so blatantly at the Republican party he should look at what the real issue is.
The real issue is there is a flaw in the law, not a problem with someone enforcing the law. So really, the article only nitpicked and blurred the lines. I'm sure that if a democrat was pushing to prosecute a Republican for the same crime he would not feel the same way.
Although the Republicans may hold some resentment towards Moore, they've already given a public response with their movie Farenhype 9/11. So that could be considered his so-called 'getting back at Moore.'
After all, he's not going to be sentenced to life imprisonment or anything remotely close. We all recognize Moore's intentions as will the courts, I'm sure; so really, there is not a need to nitpick. Although, we all do.
I'm nitpicking about this article, just as Pittman's article was nitpicking at Moore. But we all need to stop nitpicking and get back to the issues that really matter.
I would lastly like to add that I apologize if anyone is offended by this piece. It wasn't my intention. I just wanted to show people both sides of the picture. I do think that as a member of the press he should try to look at both points of view instead of being so one sided.
It said that the republican party was trying to 'get back at Moore' (for making Fahrenheit 9/11) by getting him into trouble for allegedly bribing young people to vote with unusual prizes such as clean underwear, Top Ramen, dorm room etc. Well here's the truth of it all.
Did he break the law? Yes, he did. That means that he committed a crime. Although it seems petty to us and almost pointless to prosecute, no matter how little the crime someone commits, it's only right that the new law be enforced.
You wouldn't say to a person stealing a handheld television, "Oh, it's okay, it's really small and your stealing this small thing won't have much of an effect on us, so we won't prosecute" and then tell another someone who's stealing 50 big screen televisions, "Well, you do the crime you do the time," and expect it to be fair.
A white lie may be harmless but it's still a lie, and a fact may be slanted or taken out of context but it's still a fact, and so a petty crime is still a crime. He points his finger at the Republican Party and make accusations abut their intentions but all they did was enforce the law. They didn't blur the lines and just let it go. Is it wrong to enforce the law? Instead of pointing his finger so blatantly at the Republican party he should look at what the real issue is.
The real issue is there is a flaw in the law, not a problem with someone enforcing the law. So really, the article only nitpicked and blurred the lines. I'm sure that if a democrat was pushing to prosecute a Republican for the same crime he would not feel the same way.
Although the Republicans may hold some resentment towards Moore, they've already given a public response with their movie Farenhype 9/11. So that could be considered his so-called 'getting back at Moore.'
After all, he's not going to be sentenced to life imprisonment or anything remotely close. We all recognize Moore's intentions as will the courts, I'm sure; so really, there is not a need to nitpick. Although, we all do.
I'm nitpicking about this article, just as Pittman's article was nitpicking at Moore. But we all need to stop nitpicking and get back to the issues that really matter.
I would lastly like to add that I apologize if anyone is offended by this piece. It wasn't my intention. I just wanted to show people both sides of the picture. I do think that as a member of the press he should try to look at both points of view instead of being so one sided.