Letters to the editor

Bruin misrepresents BR on Taco Bell

I must clarify some positions pertaining to the Bruin
Republicans, Bruin Democrats and the Taco Bell fiasco as presented
in “Students challenge ASUCLA” (News, 10/29).

It is indeed true that the Bruin Republicans are against any
measure to remove a campus eatery based on notions of “social
responsibility.” But we do not condone the charges against
the tomato producer in Florida.

In a free society, producers and consumers have every right to
engage in mutually beneficial transactions, and the same holds for
employers and employees. Students have every right to boycott Taco
Bell for purchasing tomatoes from vendors who
“underpay” their workers, but other students also have
every right to cross the picket line.

Secondly, it is also true that the BR plan on uniting with the
BD in the spring to elect a new coalition into office. This does
not imply that the “Bruin Republicans and Bruin Democrats
will unite to support board candidates who allow eateries such as
Taco Bell to stay on campus.”

Campus eateries are hardly a litmus test for our two groups to
mutually endorse candidates in the spring election. Rather, Taco
Bell will be one more opportunity for the BR to illustrate how out
of touch our campus officials really are.

Nicholas Louw Vice chairman, Bruin
Republicans

Prop. 64 plays into corporate interests

As a proud Bruin alumna I thought I would be in sync with the
Daily Bruin on the election candidates and issues; well we are,
sort of. However, I cannot disagree with you more on your position
regarding Prop. 64. Prop. 64 is sponsored by the mega-corporations
to intimidate us from filing lawsuits when we are injured (or
worse) by their products, services and personnel.

I am sad to read that you have bought into that malarkey about
this proposition’s passage cutting down on “unfounded
and damaging lawsuits.” It pains me to see the Daily Bruin
taking the stance of a capitalist tool.

Patrice Summers Staff, UC Santa Barbara