Letters

Monday, February 1, 1999

Letters

Exercise rights

by choosing life

This letter is written in response to Shawn Peterson’s article
"Abortion creates choice between liberty, life." (Viewpoint, Jan.
28).

Abortion is one of the most potent issues in the world today. I
think that we should breathe a sigh of relief in America that
abortion is not forced on our women.

I think everyone has heard all the arguments, one side saying
that a baby will ruin a woman’s life, the other, that the life of
the fetus is important as well. This is an issue that everyone has
to make a choice about.

I mean, one day our taxpayer dollars might go toward funding
these clinics; abortion might come in contact with some of us in a
more personal way.

I have always believed in the right to choose. Everyone has the
power to make a choice, whether right or wrong, and every choice
has a consequence.

I also believe that everyone has a right to live. I could not
bring it upon myself to kill a child, but by the same token, I will
not condemn a person who has made that choice.

I find that pro-lifers should be more loving toward the women
who make these choices and toward the doctors who perform these
procedures.

They are people too, and the best way to show that people are
really "pro-life" is by respecting the lives of others and by
loving them for who they are.

I believe that abortion is wrong, but I will not hate someone
for it. I have seen abortions performed and it is the only force,
next to videos of the genocide of the Armenians by Ottoman Turks
and of the Jews by Nazi Germany, that has brought me to tears and
utter despair for the blatant disrespect and destruction of life.
It is our natural right to choose … I just urge people to choose
life.

Sarkis Babikian

First-year

Organismic Biology, Ecology and Evolution

Whites apply,

but headlines lie

The headline of your article "Number of minority applicants
rises" (News, Jan. 21) is misleading because, while its statement
is true, it only reflects part of the story that the numbers
tell.

If I analyze your chart, I find that the number of minority
applicants has risen by 1,812 or 11 percent, whereas that number
for whites has increased by 2,468 or 26 percent, i.e. much more in
both absolute and relative terms.

No matter what your angle is, the main topical story to derive
from the data is that the number of applications from whites showed
the biggest increase (since all ethnicities showed an increase
anyway; most likely a side effect of having fewer applicants who
decline to state their ethnicities).

Therefore, your title should have reflected (or at least not
neglected) that fact.

Dr. Philippe P. Brieu

Department of physics and astronomy

Gates’ Microsoft is anti-competitive

In response to the Head to Head article, regarding the Microsoft
trial, ("Government agents should open windows for Microsoft"
Viewpoint, Jan. 28.), I myself am a Libertarian, but I cannot agree
with the naive and simplistic approach that Matthew Gever takes in
his argument that Microsoft earns its money fairly.

Admittedly, I use Microsoft products, from Windows to Office,
but their use is not only dictated to me by their
user-friendliness, but also by their compatibility with those
computer users who are around me.

Gever thinks this success is the deciding factor in why
Microsoft is so successful.

Perhaps he should do some more investigation into the case(s).
The case(s) against Microsoft deals with many issues.

For example, Microsoft allegedly told many computer
manufacturers that if they included Netscape with their desktop
computers, Microsoft would not allow them to sell Windows
pre-loaded on their computers – big computer companies don’t buy
software off the same shelves we do.

Another issue brought up was the addition of proprietary code to
Microsoft’s own Java development tools.

Java is a programming language that Sun Microsystems developed
to be compatible on all computer platforms. Microsoft’s additions
made it incompatible with the Sun standards, yet Microsoft would
not remove the "Java Compatible" advertising.

You think the millions of dollars donated to Apple in its time
of financial need went unreturned by other favors, far more
beneficial to Microsoft? Think again. The list goes on and on.

Microsoft’s successes, although grand, are not only the work of
honest, savvy go-getters – if they have acted in anti-competitive
practices like the ones mentioned here, they should indeed be
scrutinized, and punished.

After all, the judicial system still exists in a Libertarian
world.

Lev Lvovsky

Fifth-year

Physics

Lighten up, cheer on the team

This letter is written in response to the letter from alumnus
Larry Pizarro: "Bruin chats simply stupid" (Viewpoint, Jan. 26).
The letter criticized Bruin fans for the chants they had used
during recent home games. First off, I want to say that times are
different now. We’re not the same students that went here 20 years
ago.

We actually care if our basketball team wins now. What do you
want us to say to the referees in a game in which they called 35
fouls on us, and 19 on them? "OK Mr. Referee, that wasn’t a very
good call, but I believe you can do better next time!" or "Hey
there, No. 44 on Stanford! You could use some work on your
game!"

I don’t think so.

We were just trying to create a hostile environment for Stanford
to play in. It’s called a "Home Field Advantage." We were letting
our team know we were there for them. And you know what? You’re
just lucky we didn’t say something about Chelsea Clinton being
there – or at least, didn’t say too much.

Aron Lum

First-year

Undeclared

True fans never leave games early

Derek Evenson hit the nail on the head with his defense of UCLA
students ("Show school spirit or get out of town" Viewpoint, Jan.
28).

How can we possibly criticize our most devoted fans for their
energy and fervor? If it weren’t for the students there would
hardly be a peep heard from the alumni and general admission
section.

It is this wild enthusiasm that has helped to sway many of the
current athletes to attend our university. If there is any group
that should be criticized, it should be those "fans" that arrive to
the game late, then leave early after the outcome has been decided.
It is this behavior that has drawn criticism of the players.

After the Stanford game Earl Watson expressed his disappointment
in the lack of devotion of those who left early. If somebody wants
to watch the game without the sound they should stay home and watch
it on TV, that way they can also save themselves the effort of
leaving early to beat traffic.

Justin Paras

Fourth-year

Biology

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]