Letters to the Editor

Minorities not 'beaten and oppressed'

To the Daily:

After reading the commentary of Mirand Massie regarding the court ruling on UGA admissions last week, I am compelled to write in response. Is it not racist by definition to homogenize entire groups of people based upon their ethnic ancestry? Is it not also racist to presume that simply because a person lives and works in a state that seceded from the United States over 130 years ago, that such a person would be somehow linked to the Confederacy?

By portraying all people of color as beaten and oppressed at a time when more opportunities and support coalitions are available to people of color than ever before, defiant supporters of affirmative action have stereotyped all non-whites in a degrading and insulting manner. The economic and social costs of maintaining racially-motivated economic/opportunity redistribution programs are staggering but rarely mentioned in the debate surrounding this dated practice.

When we speak of "oppressed people," let us look at the situation realistically and realize that more opportunities are available for persons at higher economic strata than at lower levels. It simply makes more sense to realize this economic reality than to maintain a philosophy that seems to rely more and more on the weak mantra of "White people just don't get it."

Dave Hodge

LSA Junior

Green autos have a long way to go

To the Daily:

During the years I was on campus, I read numerous articles, editorials and published letters condemning the automotive industry on its environmental record. One question that has been raised directly or indirectly many times is: why can't we have high efficiency, near zero emissions, and/or alternative fuel vehicles today?

The basic answer is that 2 to 5 years ago when we were designing today's cars and engines we didn't have the technology at a marketable state.

Today we have some of the required technology, as seen by Ford Motor Company's recent announcements concerning the use of light weight materials, new engine and new power train technologies to improve the fuel efficiency of its sport utility vehicles. But fuel cell technology, which is the most promising near zero emissions technology, is still 5 to 15 years away from being commercially available. A good, explanation of the state of fuel cell technology is in Automotive Engineering International magazine, March 2000 (page 170), which is available in the Media Union.

There is a great difference between technology that works in laboratories and marketable technology. What generally takes the longest bringing a technology to market is finding out how it will be effected by the real world and people. In a world where people ignore warnings, abuse products, misuse products, don't use and even purposely defeat safety mechanisms and then sue the manufacturer when they get hurt, manufacturers would like to know as much as possible about how to people-proof any new technology before they place it in the general market place.

Adam Muller

Alumnus

Harry Potter review was 'uninformed'

To the Daily:

I read a review of the fourth Harry Potter book on Bookwire.com originally printed in your paper ("Harry does it again; 'Fire' an instant classic" 7/17/00). I would like to take exception to the condescending statement, "There are times that the stock characters become predictable but it is these moments that we must remind ourselves that we are reading a children's book, and let it pass." Well-written children's books don't rely on predictable stock characters any more than well-written adult books do. I suggest your reviewer become familiar with the many outstanding children's books available rather than make such uninformed comments again.

Kathleen Odean

Author, "Great Books for Girls and Great Books for Boys"

Parties are corporate sellouts

To the Daily:

Peter Cunniffe's column on the jump-start that Gore needs for his campaign ("For Gore, its time to stop being safe and formulaic" 7/31/00) is right on. While I was persuaded not to vote for Gore on the merits of his uninspiring personality, I have been recently persuaded to vote for him, since his day-to-day record is more revealing.

Third party candidates are on the move, raising a ruckus (as they should) about the faults of the two-party system. Indeed, both majority parties are sold out to corporations, have no incentive to deal with campaign finance issues and won't disrupt the status quo too much.

But it's the status quo of each party that convinces me to vote for Gore. Until the Republican party begins to diversify on local levels (school boards, county seats, state reps, etc.) the promises of their presidential candidate loom empty.

More importantly, in this university town there are some serious problems with Democratic candidates track records that will force women, racial minorities, and the poor to vote for none of the above. Candidates who refuse to deal openly with white privilege, affirmative action, Michigamua, housing (not shelters) for the poor vs. "affordable" housing, legalization of medical marijuana, racial profiling, and lack of racial diversity within the party city wide will get no vote from me.

Audrey Jackson

Alumnus