Keyes pokes fun, not harm
I am a Mormon, and David Keyes’ cartoon on Friday Nov.
15th was absolutely hilarious.
He was not stereotyping, but rather finding humor in one aspect
of Mormonism. Would that all humorists were as gentle as Keyes in
poking fun … imagine that.
Finding humor in situations is healthy and reasonable. In
addition, it is his first amendment right to express
himself. Keyes’ cartoon hurt no one and made my friends
(many of whom are Mormon) and me laugh. It was a riot and
shouldn’t be perceived as offensive. People who are
upset by his cartoon should be called morons, not
Mormons.Matthew Wood Fourth-year, aerospace
engineering
Cartoon reveals double standard
To be quite honest, I really didn’t find David
Keyes’ cartoon Friday too offensive, but I do know that such
comments would never be made in The Bruin about gays, Muslims, Jews
or many other groups.
If Viewpoint were to print something portraying Islamic people
as terrorists, it would be considered very offensive. The cartoon
was not funny but rather was naive and based upon ridiculous
stereotypes. Please, in the future just think about what would be
offensive to another religion or group.Margot Smith
Second-year, undeclared
Private rights go past membership
I was pleasantly surprised yesterday to see that the Editorial
Board isn’t as liberal as I thought. The editorial,
“Augusta club policy wrong, but legitimate” (Nov. 20)
presents a great point about private institutions being
independent.
It goes beyond membership though ““ if a private
institution doesn’t want to hire black people or refuses them
as customers, who is the government to force them to? We can only
insist that the government not discriminate in its jobs and
services.
Of course, I’m not naive. If Jesse Jackson started working
for NOW, women would be playing golf at Augusta tomorrow. When a
government institutes civil rights for its people, private
institutions don’t get an exemption.David Bruno
Fourth-year, materials engineering
Attack against Senator unjust
I was offended by Mike Hansen’s recent column, “War
on terrorism weakening al-Qaeda,” (Nov. 19). Rather than
addressing Sen. Daschle’s valid criticism of President
Bush’s handling of the war on terror, he engaged in an ad
hominem attack against the senator and Democrats.Â
Questioning the methods used to fight al-Qaeda does not mean
that Daschle is against the war on terror. To state that he is
“wrongly questioning the war on terror” suggests that
any questioning of the president by an elected member of Congress
is disloyal.Â
As an Army veteran, I did not consider Daschle’s criticism
of President Bush’s policies as criticism of the military. To
equate any one party with military service is dangerous and
unpatriotic. The military is apolitical, and if it ever ceases
to be we will no longer have a democracy. J.D. Henderson
Second-year, law student
Military should be used for defense
I was just reading the column “War on terrorism weakening
al-Qaeda” written by Mike Hansen (Nov. 19) and wanted to
point out that I disagree with the column very much.
The military is for defense, and this offensive war is not a
just war by any means. If I were in the military right now, I would
appreciate it if politicians preserved the meaning of the duty to
defend by pulling back from this strong pro-offensive war
stance.
It seems to me that Hansen, along with a large amount of U.S.
citizens, is too caught up in the war on Iraq.
The fact of the matter is, Iraq’s government does not like
us. But does that make an attack justified? Last I checked, war
involves a lot of innocent people dying for greedy governments. I
think that trying to solve our problem with Iraq through the United
Nations is a better idea than trying to take out Iraq
ourselves.Azad Zahoory Second-year, computer
science
Semesters give too much slack
I just read “Academic calendar called into
question,” (News, Nov. 13) regarding the possible switch to
semesters. Just an old alumnus’Â opinion here, but keep
the quarter system. While I never took a semester class,
IÂ worked for both a semester system university as well as a
quarter system university.
Even as just an employee, those semesters always seemed to
drag on way too long. I really enjoyed the quarter system
as a student in junior college and at UCLA. From my perspective as
both a former student and employee, the quarters just move along
much more efficiently because there is no time to “slack
off.”Shannon Hawkins Class of 1975
Students should foot education bill
The Daily Bruin Editorial Board is just a bunch of spoiled brats
(“Students not responsible for funding UC,” Nov. 18).
The in-state undergraduate tuition at UCLA is often $20,000 per
year less than some comparable, or less than comparable, private
universities. Factor in the added costs of travel,
long-distance phone bills and other costs related to being a
student across the country, and the cost saved by California
residents attending UCLA instead of a private school could easily
reach $30,000 a year.
Yet, the editors feel that the differences in tuition should
come out of the state taxpayers’ pockets when times get
financially difficult rather than from the people directly
receiving the benefits of the service. Well, it’s time the
editors suggest something they apparently lack ““
responsibility by those who directly benefit the most from the
services: the students themselves.Ethan Green Class of
1999
USAC “˜justice’ too limited
I am writing about the ridiculously biased “Global Justice
Week” that USAC is sponsoring. Although the event starts with
a debate, ensuing programs/speakers are all anti-war liberal
rabble-rousers. Why does USAC believe that the definition of
“justice” is limited to the left?Mike O’Young
Daily Bruin Webmaster 2001-2002