Letter to the Editor

My goal in writing my letter to the editor was to get people talking about the inequality involved in California's ban of gay marriage. I posted it a few weeks ago if you're interested. I was very disappointed when I got no responses to my letter; I had really wanted to start a dialogue on my campus. Then almost a month later, Mr. Darrell Woodman responded to my letter, here is his response:

"Ms. Phillips, I first want to commend you for taking the time to write your letter about something you feel strongly about. I am sorry that you feel the ban on same-sex marriage violates the idea of equality. However, I want to remind you of the concept of "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Obviously, this is from the Gettysburg Address, but speaks volumes of what our government is to be. Mainly, the government is supposed to reflect what the people want. Case in hand, the people of California shockingly stood up and voted for the ban on same-sex marriage. Hence, the people spoke and it doesn't matter what one liberal judge says about it being constitutional. It is interesting that you use a quote that references the "Creator" to make your argument, since God is clearly the establisher of marriage in the first place and set it forth then as a union between one man and one woman � but that's another letter. I support the ban and applaud the people of California. While I think some sort of civil unions could be accommodated, I think that marriage is off limits. My main gripe is how those on the other side of the issue protest. Invading and disrupting church services and naked bike rides through town only hurt their cause. If you lose a vote, either accept it or move. I accept the recent presidential election results and am preparing to embrace socialism and have practiced throwing my money out of my window as I drive home daily. Sometimes things don't seem equitable, but we have to accept, adapt and move on � just show some class and respect in doing so."

Darrell Woodman

Senior, School of Management

I was really happy that someone had responded to me, even if I didn't agree with his views. Here is what I found out: When wanting to start a dialogue in the newspaper, you need to be pretty offensive so that people feel motivated to write in and argue with you. Unfortunately, I didn't understand this at the time I wrote my letter to the editor. Luckily, Darrel Woodman went ahead and outraged people enough for them to write in. Since his letter arguing with me was posted, the following letters have been in the newspaper. I thought you might like to read them.

"Mr. Woodman, I was honestly disturbed by your logic regarding your argument to accept California's vote to ban gay marriage. You go on to say, "... the people spoke ... If you lose a vote, either accept it or move." To me, this is disturbing. Did the abolitionists of the 19th Century accept the injustices of slavery? Did the activists for women's suffrage just accept the fact that they couldn't vote? Did the civil rights activists of the 1950s and 1960s just accept segregation? Hell, did the Founding Fathers just accept the Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts or the Tea Act? Hell no! Could you imagine what our country would be like if people had the attitude to "accept it or move"? I couldn't imagine anything more American than what the protesters in California are doing, more power to them."

Chris Daisey

Sophomore, College of Education

"This letter is in response to Darrell Woodman, who responded to the ban on gay marriage ("Accept California's vote for ban on gay marriage," Dec. 2). Sorry to burst your religious bubble, but marriages were performed long before the conception of Christianity. Leaders who converted to Christianity and tried to ensure control over the populace and their actions to create solely Christian nations in the Middle Ages made marriage a religiously-controlled event. They had to try many things to control the masses the way they wanted to, which included killing "pagans" (which meant anyone with a difference of opinion from the church) who did not go along with the church's decisions. To marry illegally was very bad for those involved, but before the influence of tyrannical Christian leaders and the religious leaders who were controlled by them, marriage was between two people who loved each other and wanted to be married. Most of the time if the village members agreed upon the marriage, it was seen as a legal, binding marriage. My, how far we've come."

Shannon Oelslager

Senior, College of Liberal Arts

"Dear Mr. Woodman,
I read your letter on Dec. 2 and all I can say is I hope you are just trolling here; but in case you aren't, I would like to point out the huge flaw in your argument. While America is supposed to be "the government of the people �" it is not supposed to be allowed to oppress the minority in doing so. James Madison was famous for his support of the idea of majority rule with minority rights. This means that while the majority can and should guide policy decisions, they cannot decide to take away rights from people in the minority. In short, the minority is to have equal rights with the majority, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Second, I would like to look at your comment on "god" defining marriage. If the Christian god defines marriage, then what about the billions of non-Christians who get married? Under this definition of marriage, you've pretty much said that only Christian marriages are valid, and considering that would never get passed into law in this day and age, then the argument of god has no place in the matter. Take your fairy tales and go play somewhere else while the big people are talking about serious issues.

Lastly I'd like to call you out on your jab that Obama is a socialist. As someone who understands and agrees with socialism, I am offended. If Obama was a socialist, I wouldn't have felt dirty after I voted. The plain truth is that Obama is a rich capitalist just like every other president we've had. If we ever elected a socialist, we wouldn't be in the crisis we are in now. Instead we have four more years of "free trade" economics and the strife that comes with it."

Dustin Ratliff

Sophomore, College of Liberal Arts

"I would like to thank Darrell Woodman for finally inspiring me to write to this publication. It seems Mr. Woodman is quite confused on how our government works. See, you're under the impression that we're an actual democracy; while it's true to a point, we're actually a democratic republic. Its goal is to make sure all the people get represented and not just an oppressive majority.

I'd imagine that if Mr. Woodman had been born 40 years earlier, he'd be making the same comments about African Americans getting civil rights, as the majority was against that as well. It's the government's responsibility to ensure that all people have the same rights. Oh, and the whole civil union thing? Remember that whole separate but equal thing and how well that worked?

I especially loved how Mr. Woodman wants us to sit by content with every decision made by the government as well. There's a reason why we have the right to protest.

Finally, I was unaware that the Christian "god" was the one who created marriage which is interesting as that "god" didn't come around until millenia after people had been getting married. Oh, and thanks for that lovely jam about socialism. I'd just like to ask that as you're protesting (gasp!) by throwing your money at the window, you do it at College Station. We could use the rent money, yo."

Josiah Berry

Junior, College of Technology

"Darrell, your own phrase, "Sometimes things don't seem equitable, but we have to accept adapt and move on�" is in direct contrast with the core values of American government. When something does not seem equitable, it is our own duty to fight for a change. If one side gives up the argument, stands aside and lets the opposition dominate without critique, that is akin to tearing a star off the flag and setting it ablaze. People who don't want California's ban cited in possible future policies in their own state have a right to oppose it. For every cause, there are those who try to help, but are more of an embarrassment; let's not pretend that there has ever been a perfectly civil and by-the-book revolution. However, if "accept it or move" is your approach to things you do not approve of, I highly suggest you consider the case of your disapproval of Phillips' remarks."

Casey Drummer

Freshman, College of Science

Associations

The other day I was walking home from campus and I was struck by what I saw on the people passing me. Most of them bore marks which associated with sororities, Obama supporters, Engineering Societies, Nursing majors, The Association of College Republicans, fraternities, the band and the like.


I realized how happy I am to not be associated with any of those things. In fact, I'm not associated with much of anything at all. I'm not in any clubs, I have a major but I don't have any shirts proclaiming, "Sociology Majors Do It Better" or any rubbish like that. I was an Obama supporter but that was after careful consideration, not just because I'm always a Republican or a Democrat. I actually enjoyed having candidates vie for my vote rather than feeling obligated myself to try and convince people to vote one way or another. I choose to live with the people that I live with, and I'm free to go about my business as I please, not forced to participate in inane community or spirit building exercises. I have to go to classes, but I'm not forced to go to any practices where I must run for miles in order to be associated with a sports team.

There is something that just really turns me off about being associated with things. I want to be an amalgamation of my individual likes and dislikes, which are unique to me. I love not having an idea of how I feel about a thing until I am presented with the facts of it and get to decide for myself, as well as not having pressure from some group which expects me to feel one way or the other.

I guess that I don't think bonds should be formed just because of agreement on a subject. I don't want to go to cookouts with you because you are also an Obama fan. I don't want to wear matching shirts because we are both atheists or Christians. That is not enough of a link to make me want to spend time with you. In fact, some of the most interesting people think very differently about the world then I do.

Anyways, I guess if I have to be associated with something, I would like it to be justice, loyalty, honesty, and things like that. Instead of someone saying, "Savannah's a Democrat, she'll probably answer like this..." I want them to say, "Savannah believes in justice, she'll probably answer like this..."
Those are really the only things I can think of that I want to associate myself with, not Future Farmers of America or any such silly thing.

The Dolphins Make Me Cry

In honor of Ms. Britney Spears' birthday today and the dropping of her new album Circus, here is a post about music.

Do any of you ever have this problem? You're listening to a song you've never heard before and you're really enjoying it. Suddenly you hear the dumbest, most awkward, senseless, or repulsive lyrics ever. The song is ruined for you.
Or maybe you're listening to a much loved song for the millionth time, when suddenly a line that used to sound like, "blah rah lah" clarifies itself in your brain to make lyrics that are suddenly understandable and utterly horrifying. This song is also ruined for you.
Maybe I'm the only one that lets song lyrics absolutely ruin songs for me, and I will be willing to accept that none of you care or can relate to this. It's just that today while listening to my adorable little red i-pod shuffle, this happened to me like 10 times in a row. I'm going to list some of the offending lyrics, and you can let me know if I'm overreacting.

First song: "She Wants to Move by N.E.R.D.


This song is one that I have enjoyed many times before. I really liked it... until today. I heard the lyric, "Her ass is a spaceship I want to ride." This occurs at about 1:16 in the song. The lyric in itself is pretty ridiculous but there is something about the way Pharell sings it that just seriously makes it not ok for me. Especially when that guy in the background echoes "Her ass." Weird.

Song 2: Spazz by N.E.R.D.
I am not picking on N.E.R.D. It just so happened that my i-pod wasn't on shuffle mode so I got these two songs in a row. This song had me going with an AWESOME opening beat and then suddenly, the first lyric:


"I'm a little teapot short and stout.." ???!?!?!?!?! OK no. That is not ok. I want some lyrics about pimps and hos and dirrrty cash and my ride. NOT A NURSERY RHYME. Wow. So not cool.

Song 3: Upgrade U by Beyonce and JayZ
Unfortunately embedding for the actual music video was disabled so heres a fan made video so you can hear the song:

Ok I'm loving this song. It's awesome right? And I love Beyonce and Jay. Let's face it, Jay is one of the greatest lyricists of all time. So WHAT was he thinking? Jay sings, "Cuz that rock on your finger's like a tumor." (2:55) Really Jay? Like a tumor? I mean I know it rhymed, but I don't want to be jamming to this song and then suddenly be contemplating finger tumors. No.

Song 4: Flashing Lights by Kanye West
Ok, I could write a whole post on my hate for Kanye lyrics. While he's a good producer he absolutely sucks as a rapper. Today I was listening to this song by Kanye:


when I heard the lyrics, "'Til I got flashed by the paparazzi ,damn these niggaz got me. I hate these niggaz more than the Nazis." (1:18) Wow. You're so clever Kanye, really, but a tip for next time: don't say you hate the people paid to take pictures of you so that you can remain in the spotlight as a rap star more than people who committed genocide and tried to take over the world.

Anyway, there were quite a few more but these were all I could remember. I realize they're all rap songs that I'm talking about and I want you to know that this especially upsets me. Amazing and witty lyrics are what drew me to rap in the first place. All I'm saying is try a little harder people!

Excerpt of a 2 Hour Long Rant

Pet Peeve of the Month: *People who don’t know when to talk about me behind my back.* I encountered someone this past weekend who was entirely uncivilized.

This person, who I'll call 'Rick' (just because I feel that the name Rick really portrays this person) was they type of person who tries really hard to be 'real'. He likes to pretend that he says what he thinks and is just honest and blunt with you because, hey, we're all friends here. Wrong. No. We are not all friends here. I take offense at you when you are offensive.

Listen, I can identify genuine people easily, and while being genuine is definitely not one of my fortes, I can appreciate a genuine person. I still think being genuine is uncivilized, but at least they speak their mind in a way that makes you feel like you can trust them, and I think they make good friends.

Rick is not genuine. He has no censor button. It’s like someone told him that people are endeared to you when you are genuine, but he missed the genuine boat and got on the rude boat.

Here are a few examples from this weekend:

WNB (Me): "My ankle was really hurting me, and I was worried, until I realized I had just been wearing my shoulder bag on the same shoulder all semester and it was doing something to my posture and my ankle."
Rick: "Oh, so are real backpacks not 'in' at your school, and that's why you wear a shoulder bag even though it hurts you?"
WNB: "Wait, what? I had no idea my shoulder bag was hurting my ankle, what are you talking about?"
Rick: "Haha, nevermind."
We can tell that this is not genuine but obnoxious by how Rick demonstrates bad faith in this conversation. He says something rude which didn't stem from ignorance as evidenced by the way he backs down when confronted about his intentions.
Another example:
While sitting and talking, conversation turns to my love of celebrity gossip.
Rick rolls his eyes and says: "Celebrity gossip is so shallow though."
WNB: "That's what I like about it. I think the same things that make me like sociology make me like celebrity gossip. I love knowing what’s going on with pop culture and our society."
Rick: "Oh well if you're approaching it from a sociological standpoint then that's ok, I guess."
WNB: "No, I'm not. It's just fun. It's just a hobby. Besides, I can't think of anything not worth learning about."
Rick: "I think some things are not worth learning about, and that would be one of them."

*Listen kids, I am neither embarrassed nor ashamed of my hobby of reading celebrity blogs. I think they’re fun and entertaining, and I enjoy knowing what's going on in the world of celebrities. Knowing about celebrities is just a hobby, like knowing all about your favorite sports teams. *

When he insinuated that reading celebrity gossip is only ok if approached from an academic standpoint it reeked of a pretentious, and phony academic. Not to mention the fact that it is downright RUDE to tell someone their hobby is lame and insinuate they are shallow to their face.

I'm not saying that people can't disagree with me about the worth of celebrity gossip or secretly think I'm a fashion conscious schickimicki. The problem comes when they feel the need to tell me that to my face.
As Kathy Griffin says, “I was raised right. I talk about people behind their backs.”

Maybe you found this rant unfounded, obnoxious or ignorant. Fine, you're welcome to your opinion. Just please, do me a favor and don't tell me about it, talk about me to someone else behind my back.