Letters to the Editor

Letter ignored important evidence of global warming

To the Daily:

Glenn Kelly's letter ("Climate concerns should be addressed voluntarily," 11/12/99), raised some issues that need to be addressed. Kelly's letter was written in response to the Ozone Action Coalition's campaign for the University to divest from members of the Global Climate Coalition - specifically, GM, Mobil and Exxon. This is part of a nationwide campaign targeting the GCC, including campaigns on campuses such as Stanford, UCLA and the University of Washington.

Kelly, executive director of the GCC, doesn't seem to give students of the University enough credit, nor does his organization. Apparently, they didn't think that we would realize that his letter glossed over the issues.

They didn't think we would be concerned that he failed to address the overwhelming body of evidence presented against the GCC in the article. No mention is made of the 2,400 scientists from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the 2,600 scientists, including over 20 from the 'U,' that say that global warming is a fact.

This is quite dissimilar from the GCC's assertions. They claim that there is simply not enough evidence to make such a statement, in fact there may be evidence to the opposite effect. Unfortunately, these statements are based on the research of an isolated few scientists, mostly known climate-change skeptics, whose research is typically not reviewed by their peers.

Similarly, the 2,500 economists, including 6 Noble Laureates, are not discussed. These experts have stated that there are policies that can be implemented to slow global warming without harming American living standards. This is, again, directly contrary to the statements of the GCC. Never mentioned is the support of the 1,000 students, the 13 students groups and the 43 professors who are calling on the University to divest from these corporations.

Instead, the letter seemed to be an attempt to make the motives of the GCC sound admirable. The Global Climate Coalition's policy of "voluntary actions" to reduce global warming emissions allows corporations to continue to produce incredible amounts of greenhouse gases, while hiding behind a few small, voluntary actions that are frequently unverifiable.

For example, the GCC has praised automakers for designing and marketing alternative energy vehicles, but makes no mention of how few of these are truly sold. They are able to improve their public image by mentioning such actions, but continue to mislead the public by not providing sales information.

We will be the first to applaud these corporations for the steps that they have taken, however these token voluntary actions are not enough. Again, these voluntary emissions reductions are simply another means for the GCC and its members to improve their public image.

Apparently, the GCC thought the public could be easily deceived and dissuaded. We know otherwise, and call upon the students to support OAC's efforts for the University to divest from members of the GCC.

Helen Walls

LSA sophomore Ozone Action Coalition co-chair Josh Davis SNRE first-year student Ozone Action Coalition co-chair

Welfare recipients should be tested for drug use

To the Daily:

This letter is in response to Scott Hunter's column on stereotypes ("Welfare and drugs - A lesson in stereotypes," 11/15/99). Hunter speaks in stereotypes himself, but doesn't realize it. He speaks in broad generalizations and never mentions any politicians who might have spoken against this bill. I wish that he actually looked at both sides of the argument, rather than from his side alone. Then, he makes an untrue stereotype that the lawmakers made this law, as well as others, "because it was based on false stereotypes."

Let me make a stereotype on my own behalf, and this is sarcasm. Scott Hunter is just another black man calling everybody racist. Now see how stupid that sounds. Let me go farther, and attempt to back up my own opinion like he has. Many African-Americans are the first to shout racist at anybody else. This is shown by the fact that those people who are against affirmative action will not speak up.

Hunter also makes intelligent comparisons which he thinks are stupid. He suggests a comparison of "administering drug tests to each student who applied for a student loan." I would not mind this. They have another method of doing this called grades. If a person is doing too much dope in college, his grades probably go down. Then, he suggests testing "your parents or grandparents before forking over their social security checks." This is kind of funny. If the people are old enough to collect social security and have made enough money in their lifetime to be able to keep their house, eat and do drugs from just their social security, let them.

Personally, I like the bill of testing welfare recipients for drugs. I do not want to pay somebody who is close to my age to sit around doing drugs, when I could be doing the same thing. I do not mind giving out welfare, in fact I am all for it for short periods of time. However, if somebody uses it as a constant and primary mean of income, and spends their time being destructive or lazy, I am against it. Hunter brings up the point of invading people's privacy because of a spell of financial misfortune. My question is, "how do we know what caused this spell of misfortune?" It could have been drugs, which will be detrimental to that person's ambition, and lessen his chances of getting off of the drug, and, ultimately, off welfare. I don't want to pay for that, let him make his own money to support himself and his drug habit.

To me, the whole point of welfare is to get somebody some help, and to nudge them out of their problems. It is to keep them from needing welfare again. Most people who apply truly need it for a while, and I am glad to give, as long as it is only for a little while. Next time, I hope that Hunter, and anybody else writing columns, will look at both sides of the issue and try to present both sides, not bash one and love the other.

Chris Coronado

Engineering first-year student

Bush, Connerly are not anti-diversity

To the Daily:

I was dismayed reading Jeffrey Kosseff's column on Wednesday stating that Jeb Bush and Ward Connerly "have fought vigorously to halt diversity" ("Leadership transcends political affiliation" 11/17/99). People can be against affirmative action, while still promoting other methods to encourage diversity. Without agreeing or disagreeing with the actions of the two men who were criticized, I feel it is unfair to say that they have "fought vigorously to halt diversity" just because they do not support affirmative action. Bush's recent Top 20 percent initiative is strikingly similar to the 10 percent plan in Texas whose creators freely admit is in place not to raise (or keep) academic standards, but solely to increase diversity. Connerly opposes affirmative action because he feels minorities are capable of being accepted on their own merit and he does not want them to feel they were admitted for reasons other than their own achievements. While they may not favor affirmative action, they do favor diversity; they are just trying new ways of achieving it.

Maury Bricks

Law Student

MSA campaign tactics are shallow

To the Daily:

On the second day of voting for MSA elections I received four candy suckers on my way through the diag. How appropriate.

In my opinion if these MSA parties really want my vote then maybe they should promote what they stand for and what they can do for me as a university student, rather than promote cavities.

If I wanted some candy I would go to the store. So if at all possible in the future, could the MSA parties give me a reason to vote rather than just stand in the diag and yell idiotic phrases in attempt to impress me. Until that day comes I will not be seen voting for MSA elections and to be honest I do not know anyone who will. Way to promote student government!

Jeremy Harris

LSA sophomore

11-19-99