The “liberal” inconsistencies ridiculed by Zack Calef in his March 28 column, “Liberals inconsistent on almost every issue,” reflect inconsistencies in Calef’s own piece.

If Bill Clinton, Robert Byrd and PETA in the same category looks ridiculous, that’s because it is.

Byrd is conservative, Clinton is moderate, and PETA is very liberal.

If Democrats seem inconsistent for supporting abortion and opposing the death penalty, then by the same logic, Republicans are inconsistent for opposing abortion and supporting the death penalty.

Nor do the legality of abortion and the illegality of prostitution reveal hypocrisy. Did the same group of people lobby for both?

I’ve always considered myself a liberal, but if I have to take the blame for Bill Clinton’s failings, if I have to bear the shame of being lumped with Tipper Gore and Jesse Jackson, then call me a socialist, an independent or just plain Dan.

Because I, like most thinking people, form my own opinions regardless of where I fit in the political spectrum.

If my viewpoints seem contradictory, it’s because I mulled over complex issues and came to tentative conclusions based on a variety of reasons, rather than appealing to an all-encompassing Principle of Liberalism.

Give other liberals the same benefit of the doubt.

Daniel Haug

Freshman

Biology