We are dividedOur country is definitely divided but it’s not over race, it’s over ideology or how America should be operated. Many in our country blame this on Trump but I beg to differ. How can this be Trump’s fault when it obviously started during Obama’s presidency?

Remember when we stayed up and watched late night television? Carson, Leno, and Ferguson were awesome, at times even Letterman was entertaining. In 2015 Craig Ferguson was supposed to take over for Letterman on The Late Show but instead we got Steven Colbert. I find it impossible to watch Steven Colbert, he is politically biased and insulting to all who disagree with him. Soon after Colbert’s promotion all the other talk show hosts joined in attacking those on the political right. CBS seemed to have little concern over losing half of their audience for The Late Show. The networks airing these shows don’t seem to care about profit, so who is funding them?

The abuse generally circles around calling those on the political right as being stupid, misinformed, racist, religious, homophobes, and even Nazis! This abuse of the right is now also coming from most cable news outlets and has even spread to our towns in the form of leftist activist groups who shout at us in the street. Why target a large section of the public like this? Celebrities and left leaning politicians have been making sport of insulting half of the public and yet these same individuals blame us for flaming the division!

Derek Mancinho


Article had it wrongYour November 5 edition includes an article that reports that the proposed amendment to the Wyoming Constitution regarding the debt limits on sewer projects was “narrowly” approved. That is inaccurate. The amendment actually failed.

The wrinkle is that Wyoming law requires constitutional amendments to be approved by “a majority of the electors” in a given election. Not “a majority of the people voting on the issue.” In the election on Nov. 3, there were just over 278,000 votes cast. There were 126,486 “yes” votes on the amendment, or about 45% of all votes cast. Since the measure therefore did not receive a majority of all votes cast, it failed.

The problem is that there were nearly 31,000 voters who did not vote on the issue. Those “undervotes” are therefore considered “no” votes.

Ken Chestek


Editor’s note: This above letter arrived the day prior to the Nov. 6 edition of the Boomerang. The original article appeared Nov. 5 and was corrected by the reporter. The correction appeared on Page A1 Nov. 7.

Save American StudiesI am writing this letter to express unequivocal support for the American Studies program at the University of Wyoming. Alongside not saving the University of Wyoming money – surely the primary motivation for such an action — the proposal to eliminate the American Studies program directly contradicts President Seidel’s ‘four pillars’ regarding the future of the university. These pillars, he states, should see the university becoming “more digital, more entrepreneurial, more interdisciplinary, and more inclusive”.

I find it extraordinary that our American Studies would not be considered ‘interdisciplinary’. Our program embodies the very meaning of this word, allowing students to research and study areas of their choosing; subjects that often encompass multiple disciplines.

My fellow MA students are researching topics that further underline this interdisciplinary heterogeneity. From Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), to historic clothing collections, my cohort is consistently undertaking cutting edge research.

These research examples also demonstrate an awareness and recognition of two other pillars: being inclusive and entrepreneurial. Many of my colleagues have repeatedly stressed how glad they are that American Studies welcomes not only their project, but their identity. Last year, a friend and recent graduate of the MA program wrote UW’s first ever thesis that directly addressed what it means to be a burn survivor. Clearly, his novel research required an enterprising program that wasn’t afraid to take risks. It belonged in American Studies.

American Studies also has the exciting capacity to plan and roll out remote access to degrees; further underling the program’s commitment to academic accessibility in our increasingly digital age.

Clearly, the American Studies program embraces every single one of President Seidel’s four pillars. Eliminating the program would call in question why these pillars have been established, if they are to be subsequently ignored.

Crucially, it is worth reiterating that eliminating the department would not save the university money. The MA program is fully funded by endowment resources; eliminating it would not save UW a single dollar.

Simply put, if the principle goal of the proposed elimination is to conserve money, then the proposal is fundamentally misguided.

Glen Houlihan


comments powered by Disqus