Letters

More rational gun control needed

Although I would expect Marc Nickel’s column
(“Better laws
would end gun control controversy,” Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Aug. 13) regarding gun control to receive a wave of
negative sentiment, he addresses the issue with an unusually
rational approach.

All-out bans are unlikely to be passed and would pose little or
no deterrent to criminal activities since criminals do not buy
their guns at the local retailer. Why would a felon care if his gun
is illegal if it’s already against the law for him to have
it?

A better approach is to tackle the issue as Nickel has, in a way
that could actually lead to practical application. I applaud him
for taking a stand on such an emotional and misunderstood
topic.

Rick Bucich Alumnus

President’s actions not extremist

I’m hoping your recent editorial, “W’s
vacation is good for the nation“ (Daily Bruin, Viewpoint,
Aug. 20) is not truly indicative of the journalistic talent and
dubious worldly insight of the majority of the editorial board. Is
this the summer crew or do I have an entire year to look forward to
this sort of leftist blather? And you don’t even bother to
sign the piece?

Is there anyone on the board who has worked a manual labor job,
served the country or made a real commitment to anyone other than
themselves (and I’m not speaking of wearing little red
ribbons or displaying bumper stickers saying “Save the
Planet”)? Half the country votes for President George W. Bush
and you think they’re “extremists?”

These views represent a “diverse” opinion ““
oh, I forgot ““ you’re only interested in the appearance
of diversity. Diversity of intellect, thought, background or
opinion is not accepted by the editorial board.

If these are truly the views of a majority of the editorial
board, and these individuals do not wish to collectively attach
their name to such remedial criticism, your readers (including
myself) will be much better off when you return to vacation.

Chris Johnson UCLA Department of Psychology

Globalization product of white society

I am writing in response to Mike Hansen’s ill conception
of the benefits of globalization (“Globalization
inspires worldwide unification, diversity,” Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Aug. 6).

His ploy is to show that globalization is a unifying force and
that those people who are against it are trying to resist
progress.

Hansen presents Los Angeles and New York to us as the great ways
in which citizens of the United States can enjoy the cultural
benefits of a global culture. However, those cultures were not
consumed by mass American culture until they were watered down to
fit white American cultural molds, losing their original beauty.
This leads us to understand why people that don’t fit the
white mold, either culturally, linguistically or phenotypically,
are not considered equals in this society.

This is extended to the American view of foreign cultures,
allowing for a rationalization of their economic and political
oppression.

I am not saying that whiteness, capitalism and imperialism have
to be considered synonymously for any possible cultural context but
in the world we live in, the reality of that unholy trinity must be
recognized.

Most of the great diversity that cities like Los Angeles and New
York enjoy is due to immigration. The better jobs are here because
the resources from their home countries have been destroyed by
capitalists’ search for profit.

If the progress of underdeveloped countries is only to be
thought of in terms of how little we can pay the workers there in
order for them to participate in export economies that ultimately
benefit industrialized countries, then I no longer want to be part
of such an economy and social system that comes from it.

Greg Horm Fourth-year Environmental studies