Letters

Anti-Jew view

Editor:

I was disturbed to read Ron Richards’ assertion in the Daily
Bruin ("Not anti-Jew," Feb. 22) in which he states, "I am
anti-Zionist, I am anti-Israel, but I am in no way, shape or form
anti-Jew." I would just like to clarify a few important points.

The implications of this assertion are that one who deliberately
aims to harm or destroy the Jewish state (an anti-Zionist) cannot
be likened to one who deliberately aims to harm the Jewish people
(an anti-Semite).

The differences between these, however, remain purely academic,
because the consequences of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism for the
Jewish people are the same.

In fact, historically, most anti-Semites made the claim that
their hatred was not of all Jews, only those who remained faithful
to one or another component of their identity (usually religious
beliefs and practices).

Thus, anti-Zionism differs from other expressions of
anti-Semitism only in the particular aspect of Jewish identity and
beliefs it chooses to hate.

So, in response to Richards’ assertion, I would like to quote
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who upon hearing similar anti-Zionist
sentiments, spoke out: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean
Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism."

Keith Geffen

Fourth-year

Sociology

Buyer beware

Editor:

After reading several of Mike Osman’s columns, I am morally
obligated to write this warning: Osman is a bitter apologist for
the moribund communist movement, who uses tidbits of history and
inchoate modicums of philosophy to purportedly substantiate his
arguments – as if the reader is supposed to be impressed.

His recent column entitled "Freedom depends on economics" (Feb.
26) is so typical of the noxious coffee-house type who measure the
goodness of the state solely on the distribution of its wealth.

Osman’s discourse (used loosely) is riddled with fallacies and
inconsistent argument. For instance, he writes, "In this perverse
economic system (the U.S. market economy), instead of providing
relief for the poor, technological innovation further improvises,
because increases in PRODUCTIVITY (emphasis added) ultimately tend
to reduce the number of workers needed for any given task."
Apparently, we should end all research or suffer the
consequences.

Further on, while addressing post-Soviet Russia, Osman laments,
"Meanwhile, total PRODUCTION (emphasis added) has declined
massively in all sectors (perhaps it’s at half of what is was under
socialism)." Notwithstanding Osman’s credulity in regards to
Soviet/Russian politics, the Soviet’s entire production scheme was
based on tonnage of output, typically directed toward the Iron
Triangle; it was not directed toward consumer goods, which might
have mitigated their scarcity.

However, the main point is that Osman is inconsistent: Do
increases and decreases in PRODUCTION hurt the "workers?" I know,
we should strive to achieve the "golden mean" by unlocking the
"creativity of the masses." Spare us your response.

As one ciphers through Osman’s obscurant argot, one will
discover numerous other instances when, quite simply, he is
counterfactual. My time, which has value, constricts me from
further exposing the morass of manifest folly commonly found in
Osman’s work.

Instead of proselytizing, Osman should just sit back and wait
for capitalism to peter out; that is what his hero, Joseph
Schumpeter, believed will eventually happen (between roughly the
years 2000 to 2050, for those who are curious). To those of you who
might consider buying into the illogic of Osman’s columns, I have
one warning: caveat emptor.

Richard K. Welsh

Third-year

Political science

Love isn’t a sin

Editor:

As a product of an interracial and interreligious marriage, I
have direct experience with Sherry Hartel’s subject ("Marriage:
match made in heaven?," Feb. 23).

Growing up was a unique experience, and I was often confused. I
was a Muslim living in the Middle East for 10 years, and a
Christian when I came to the United States.

Today, I follow neither of my parents’ religions. (Do I go to
Christian heaven or Muslim hell? Or is it the other way around, or
both?) My father’s relatives are fundamentalist Christian and have
completely excommunicated me. They never accepted my father’s
marriage because my mother is not a Christian and is not white.

I congratulate Hartel and the few others who can go beyond their
narrow religion to love someone else. Unfortunately, the religions
of the world have made love a sin.

I agree with Hartel’s boyfriend, Brian, on his views on God. And
it’s interesting that she says " … he is the only human being
that can make me so happy, and he is the most caring, gentle person
I know." People have told me that too, Sherry!

John Foxworthy

Third-year

Economics/international studiesComments to
[email protected]