Columnist’s argument illogical and spiteful
Kelly Bowers is right that “certain individuals and politicians take environmentalist attitudes too far” (“Environmentalism is turning hypocritical,” April 1).
Apparently, she fights fire with fire. Reading her ironic, angry rant against those giving “lectures” and “militant advice,” I felt April-fooled. Littered among the references to supposedly irrefutable arguments that she cites but never provides are unreasoned statements about individual freedoms and admittedly spiteful examples of waste.
Luckily for those who actually push for environmental stewardship, Bowers gives no unselfish reasons to side with her.
Eric Perlmutter
Graduate student, physics
Anti-Zionism distinct from non-Zionism
Rachel Robert’s letter (“Professor’s opinion offensive to both Jews and Palestinians,” March 12), in which she judged my opinion to be “offensive” is based on a confusion between non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.
Zionism does not deny any segment of the Jewish people the right to engage in a debate about how they should express their Jewishness, or whether they wish to do so in the land of the Maccabees or the land of George Washington.
It is, however, pernicious for any group, Jews or non-Jews alike, to deny another group the right to sovereignty in their historical homeland, especially one implemented in a secular, democratic, inclusive and multi-ethnic state such as Israel, which has been striving for six decades to achieve recognition and live side by side with an equally legitimate and equally indigenous Palestinian state.
Moreover, it is both pernicious and offensive for any group to join forces with organizations committed to the destruction of other people’s homeland, be it through verbal defamation, boycotts, divestments or physical violence. Anti-Zionists engage in such activities, and this is what distinguishes them from non-Zionists.
Judea Pearl
Professor, computer science
Bowers’ reasoning is flawed, unsupported
Earth Hour may not have been the best idea to promote environmental awareness, but hidden in Kelly Bowers’ irrational diatribe (“Environmentalism is turning hypocritical,” April 1) are fundamentally flawed arguments on free-market capitalism and individual choice. She complains about government’s environmental regulations interfering with personal lifestyle choices, claiming that these regulations are “dangerous to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” However, she does not consider that those lifestyle choices may threaten our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness because of excessive consumption of resources.
She resents government going down a “path of activism” while ignoring the role of government in maintaining a stable society. We expect government to react swiftly in a time of crisis, such as Hurricane Katrina. We criticize government for failing to control the ruthless ambitions of greedy bankers and corporate executives whose avarice has brought our country to the brink of financial ruin. We demand that government root out pyramid schemes and prosecute their founders.
Why is it unreasonable for government to take “activist” steps such as rationing water in a time of severe drought, or restricting pollutants when their emission is destabilizing the ecosystem? Bowers may resent government restricting her choices, but if her choices are selfish and destructive to our society, should we allow her to make them without repercussions?
Bowers has the view that a “free market” will correct all. Yet we have seen with the current financial crisis that this faith is misplaced. If left to a free market during a catastrophe that leaves a city without water, the prices will rise as the supply diminishes. Should the wealthy still be allowed to water their lawns while the poor die of thirst? Wealth alone cannot ensure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” if the society itself faces collapse.
Government has always had a say in what individuals could do with their resources, and for good reason. There are good reasons why you cannot go to your local Walmart and buy a hand grenade or a land mine, child pornography, or drug paraphernalia. The very concept of taxation is government stepping in, taking away some of your resources, and giving it to social programs or infrastructure building to better the society for everyone. This is all part of the social contract with which Bowers seems stunningly unfamiliar.
She rants against celebrities whom she claims are hypocritical, activists whom she deems to be overly reactive, and innovators coming up with ideas that she finds odd. However, she is only railing against the messengers instead of addressing the merits of the message itself. That is quite telling. Bowers and others who think like her would do well to really consider what it means to live in a “free society,” and what the role of government should be in ensuring its stability and the welfare of all of its citizens.
David Weisbart
Assistant adjunct professor, UCLA department of mathematics
Sean Wang
Doctoral student, UCLA department of statistics
Chivalry tips archaic and patronizing
Regarding last week’s submission, “Chivalry separates gentlemen from boys” (April 2), while author Kurtis Hanlon’s purpose for the piece seemed well-intentioned, his points inadvertently sounded distasteful and chauvinistic.
It is belittling to refer to a woman as a “lady,” and even more disparaging to assert that a “gentleman’s” role is to protect “the lady” as if she were a vulnerable creature who always needs a man’s security. Women do not need to hang around chivalrous men who have mastered a pretentiously suave display with the intent to attract the ladies.
Consider Hanlon’s instructions for how to “talk to a lady.” Hanlon suggests that men should be careful not to use profanity when around a “young lady.” (I suppose this excludes older women.) However, we aren’t living in the past, where crass behavior among men was tolerated so long as it doesn’t reach female ears ““ presuming women are too pure to participate in such corrupt discourse. This is the sort of attitude that vilifies women for not protecting their supposed innate innocence that differs from men’s snips-and-snails (as in, not “sugar and spice”) nature.
Hanlon goes as far as to recommend that it is a man’s responsibility to keep cool, “even if the woman is not acting like a lady and is verbally abusing you.” Hanlon’s implication seems to be that men have a moral duty that holds them to a higher standard than for women.
This only serves to establish unnecessary and fabricated disparities between the genders, as if women cannot hold to the same moral guidelines as men. Instead, the use of obscenity should be objectionable when it is practiced by any person, regardless of their gender.
Moreover, Hanlon seems to interpret crude behavior as an issue regarding proper gender roles. In Hanlon’s case, although the victim happened to be a woman who was harassed by other men, the misconduct wasn’t a sexist assault per se, but the unjust harassment of a human being. If the victim happened to be a man, I would hope people would feel a similar concern to help the individual, since verbal abuse and physical harassment are always wrong. Men shouldn’t be obligated to act out of “etiquette,” but rather out of genuine sympathy toward others. Of course, this message also extends to women.
Even Hanlon’s ending paragraph appeared insulting: He expresses his desire to “find a young lady and show her what it really means to be a gentleman,” but ostensibly disappoints his female audience by revealing how he’s already in a relationship. What’s the implication? A man can’t be a gentleman to anyone except his girlfriend? Is good behavior only necessary between a man and a woman?
Our lives shouldn’t be motivated by contrived gender presentations, but rather a rational behavior motivated by an authentic concern to do good for any individual.
Armen Ter-Barsegyan
Second-year, sociology
Stop whining about Franco as speaker
I am sick of the incessant moaning and groaning regarding James Franco as this year’s commencement speaker (“Franco is not appropriate 2009 keynote speaker,” March 31).
As a graduating student, I admit that I was initially put off by the idea of a young actor with little more “life experience” than the rest of us instructing us how to live great lives. But the graduating class of 2009 has demonstrated a sense of entitlement to having an ex-president or a sitting first lady present at commencement to inspire us with their grand stories.
We need to remember that commencement is a chance to celebrate and recognize our achievements. It’s not a counseling appointment. If you are banking on the commencement speaker to inspire you to great things, you may have already missed the bus.
Instead of pouting and protesting that Michelle Obama is not here to inspire you, go read her biography, give Franco a fair chance, and enjoy your graduation. The day is about you, not the speaker.
And if you still feel entitled to having an ex-president here, maybe you should think about calling up a certain man in Crawford, Texas who certainly has the crucial “life experiences” that the Daily Bruin and class of 2009 seems so desperate to hear about. I have a feeling he won’t be busy.
Dan McDonald
Fourth-year, business economics