• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

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

Comments

Post a comment