Rich have social responsibility
In his submission (“Rich maligned out of ignorance,”
Viewpoint, May 10), Michael Gordon attempts to debunk the claim
that the rich are “responsible for the plight of the
poor.” Did it ever occur to him why a Mr. Kenneth Lay is
sitting at home in disgrace with a couple hundred million dollars,
while thousands of employees can only protest?
How is it that his wife can go on television and cry that they
have nothing left? A certain French woman comes to mind who told
the peasants that they can eat cake.
Did it ever occur to him that the middle class pays the bulk of
taxes because corporations set up tax havens in foreign countries?
And what about a little thing called NAFTA, which has clauses built
in for corporations to attack environmental regulations and
provides opportunities for corporations to move across borders to
hire workers for less than living wage?
Did it ever occur to him that “trickle down”
economics is a myth by which the rich hoard mountains of money,
spending as little as possible on their employees? Sure, they spend
it on products. But where do the profits from these products go?
They go to other rich people.
And where did this small business argument come from? If
anything has hurt small businesses, it’s big businesses using
cheap labor across borders.
Back in the old days, there was a dangerous radical named
Aristotle. He reasoned that, in a democracy, if the rich got too
rich and the poor got too poor, the poor would use democracy to
take from the rich. There were thus two alternatives for the rich
““ help the poor or limit democracy. In this day ““ when
politicians can be bought, pork is king, and businessmen think
nothing of stealing from employees and investors ““ which
option have we apparently chosen?
The point is that the rich are responsible for the poor ““
responsible for their well-being, at the very least out of
compassion. When I think about this complex world ““ at times
violent and superficial, at times compassionate and hopeful ““
the question I ask is, “As society and technology advance,
what will we hold on to? What will we be responsible for
achieving?”
The primary problems of the coming century will be the same as
that of past centuries — the environment, overpopulation,
advancing technologies, war and hate, and poverty and degrading
standards of living.
To me, the view in this article speaks only to a certain naivete
and lack of empathy for the people who are the primary consumers
and do most of the work in this country. I end with a quote from
H.L. Mencken: “For every complex problem, there is a solution
that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
Albert Tsai
No candidate gets a free ride
While I understand that emotional tensions tend to run high
during heated USAC campaigns, we should nonetheless take such
gestures with a grain of salt when they suddenly appear during
the final days of campaigning. Hence, reading the baseless,
contrived mudslinging in Erika Ramirez’s submission
should serve as no exception.
She alleges that David Dahle somehow received a “free
ride” from the Daily Bruin, while Bryant Tan was the victim
of a deliberate smear campaign.
Let’s remember one thing ““ you can’t attack an
opponent who has a flawless record. Tan is a prime example of
a candidate with dozens of skeletons in his closet and a
condescending demeanor to boot. Tan and
his supporters should just be thankful that the
majority of those stories never actually went to print!
As for David Dahle, every alleged fault Ramirez
attributes to him is magnified 10-fold in his two fellow general
representatives, Cindy Mosqueda and Theo Apostol. But both
those officers are from Student Empowerment!, so Ramirez
conveniently ignores them. She wants to smear Dahle with the
“do-nothing” brush. In fact, Dahle did more with
his puny $1,205 allocation than his two fellow reps did with
budgets of over $2000 each.Â
Dahle advocated for BruinGo!, and was the first officer to ever
put together a fully randomized campus survey to find out the true
concerns of students. On top of his other duties, Dahle also
pressed for a much-needed crosswalk near campus. No student
who has ever made that dangerous crossing at the bottom of Saxon
Suites and Gayley had anything but praise for the idea.
As far as unreported stories that Ramirez alleges, that blade
cuts two ways. The Bruin has made no mention of the large
number of Election Code violations that Student Empowerment!
accumulated during its campaigning. One resulted in a one-hour
“no-flyering” sanction, one in a general warning to all
candidates, and another in the relabeling of a misleading SE!
flyer. I even personally photographed an incident where a
Student Empowerment! leafletter had been distributing campaign
flyers within 75 feet of a polling place ““ a zone
designated off-limits to campaigning! That all happened the
week of the elections. In last week’s one-position runoff,
SE! accumulated two more violations that are currently in the
judicial process. By comparison, only one complaint was filed
against SURE, which was quickly dismissed by an Election Board
whose chairman, Matt Kaczmarek, was handpicked by USAC President
Karren Lane just this February.
I might suggest that before Ramirez begins heaving false
partisan attacks at SURE, that she look at the dirty tricks
perpetrated by her own slate. Mudslinging might be an
inseparable aspect of campaigning ““ but it should
not substitute for the truth.
Simon Perng Fifth-year Political science