The column which bemoaned the supposed lack of concern for leadership or participation in the anti-war movement is fittingly representative of the clueless positions of the minority activists that are generally the most "anti-war" ("Students have spark anti-war movement needs," Oct. 17).

The author asks why more students weren't present at last week's anti-war candlelight vigil at the Allen Street Gates, supposing that a lack of turnout at an anti-war rally means that Penn State students don't care about current events or pressing issues like valiant protesters do.

Did she take a minute to think that maybe attendance was low because we have grown immensely weary of such negative "activism"?

We know President Bush's approval rating is low. We know most aren't satisfied with bread and butter issues at home and abroad. We know unrest is high. We also know that negative anti-war protests by students are also completely played-out little more than public whining and complaining.

If anything, lack of turnout at the anti-war vigil is finally testament to the fact that students are indifferent to radical ideologues who so often exploit them through such events. I'm "concerned about our future, our present and especially our troops," but the most effective way to change things -- as most student seemed to have finally realized -- is most definitely not to stand in town holding a candle.

The anti-war "movement" needs to get over itself and realize this isn't the 1960s anymore.