Letters to the editor

U.S. aid to Asia has been generous

Although he makes a noble attempt to spin the facts, Matthew
Kennard’s preconceived anti-America bias is clearly the basis
for his Jan. 7 column “Government leaders should redraft
funds, revise morals.”

Kennard attacks nations like the United States, claiming,
“The more money you have, the more your life is
worth.”

Not only is it petty to attack the U.S. government and label it
“morally repulsive,” but it is an outright fabrication
of the facts. How sad that the “bash America first”
crowd, still bitter from the election returns of last November,
finds it their duty to go out of their way to attack this nation
and its leader at a time of international crisis.

You want to talk about generosity? The U.S. government stepped
up to the plate with a $350 million pledge to the hard-hit region,
certainly “not peanuts.” But that is far from the total
aid that the United States has pledged to the region.

In addition to monetary donation, the United States has provided
troops on the ground and priceless vital supplies. Ten ships,
including an aircraft carrier, helicopters and over 13,000 troops
are now bringing aid to East Asia. Kennard conveniently left that
fact out of his argument. More than money, Eastern Asia needs
manpower to deliver supplies to those who need it most. The United
States has stepped up, and modest estimates of the costs for these
U.S. efforts are about $5.6 million a day.

And that is just the government. Kennard claims, “We live
in an economic system that tries its very best to drive out all
feelings of empathy and altruism from us.” But America has
privately donated more than $200 million to tsunami aid. And if
Kennard wants to be a partisan, let me point out that George W.
Bush has donated $10,000 from his own wallet to tsunami relief
efforts, and, in past years, the 10 most generous states have all
been solidly Republican red states. The most affluent and liberal
region of the country, New England, has been at the bottom of the
list.

Kennard has not yet realized that a government letting people
spend more of their own money does not make them greedy. He asks,
“Why aren’t our governments doing enough?” I
think they are doing more than enough.

Matthew Klint First-year, political science

USAC ““ mind your constituency

Every year, there is much rending of the garments and gnashing
of the teeth over low voter turnout for our Undergraduate Students
Association Council’s elections. This is because the slates
do not serve general student interests, but instead are beholden to
the special interest groups of which they are composed. A case in
point: the diversity requirement.

With bittersweet feelings, I read that the requirement’s
proposal was de facto turned down. Sweet, because an obviously
stupid and ridiculous proposal didn’t pass. Yet bitter
because our fine USAC representatives are going to keep complaining
until a tired faculty gives in to their demands.

My biggest concern at UCLA has been getting the classes I need
to graduate on time, not sticking bored kids in a lecture hall to
listen to things they don’t care about. The proposal would
have taken already thinly stretched resources and allocated them to
an unnecessary requirement.

Why is this requirement unnecessary? This is Los Angeles. Anyone
who isn’t exposed to people of different backgrounds
won’t be elucidated any more by being forced to cram for a
class.

Secondly, GEs are the worst classes at UCLA because the
professors know that they’re not teaching to students with
interest, but instead to those who are just trying to fulfill a
requirement.

Most students (including minorities like me) don’t care
about requirements such as this. USAC, it’s time for you to
start doing something useful.

Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar Fourth-year, physiological
science