|
Volume CXXXII, Number 10 |
 |
Security should notify ticketed students
To the Editors:
About a month ago I mistakenly parked in the blue section of the Farley lot. I returned to my car five days later, and by then two tickets were sitting on my windshield. Technically, I should have been towed. Regardless, it must have been obvious to the security officer that I had not been back to my car since the first ticket was issued.
Similarly, my friend's car was towed from Bowdoin grounds last Monday morning. He was never notified that it was sitting in the impound lot for $50 a day; luckily, he happened to need it the next day, discovering the situation before it got too expensive. Why couldn't someone in Security have let him know that his car was being taken away?
The fact is that many students leave their cars parked and untouched for days, even weeks, at a time. But without communication between Security and students, one parking blunder has the potential to cost hundreds of dollars-a bill that (incredibly!) not all of our parents will pay. It seems fair that students, especially non-egregious parking offenders, should be alerted to parking citations before they get out of hand.
Now I'm not suggesting that Security be relegated to a babysitting service, cleaning up our parking messes while we run around willy-nilly. And I'm not even suggesting that Security has an obligation to tell students before they are ticketed. I am suggesting that Security adopt a policy whereby they inform violators-by phone or email-the day a citation is given. A simple heads-up from the office would allow students to act quickly to fix the problem before ridiculous charges are racked up, thus saving us hundreds of dollars a month. It would also reduce the number of embittered souls ranting to the people at the garage in West Bath or poor Pauline in the Security office.
Obviously, Security is not out to get students, or to make a quick buck. But they now have the power to prove that they are indeed working for the students by initiating what would be a much-appreciated courtesy. This is a golden opportunity for increased communication between Security and students, and it could be a first step toward alleviating some of this school's parking headaches. Otherwise, this winter has the potential to be a long and expensive one for Bowdoin drivers.
Sincerely,
Chris Lajoie '04
Not all liberals blind to communism
To the Editors:
I write this letter to the Orient, although the article in question appeared in the Patriot, because I think the Orient has wider readership.
Gilman Barndollar wrote in the Patriot that liberals were blind to communisms evils and went along with communism. Some did, particularly at the beginning of the 20s and in the Popular Front period and the worst days of the Depression. A few, like Pete Seeger or Paul Robeson stayed with the party. But most did not. Some otherwise liberal unions expelled the communists in the 20s. With the Moscow purge trials in the mid 30s and the apparent incipient success of the New Deal in fighting the Depression, the CPUSA withered. John Dewey led an investigating group that concluded that Stalin had ordered Trutsky's murder. Several important black intellectuals toyed briefly with the CPUSA, but like Richard Wright (or the protagonist in Ellison's Invisible Man) were quickly disillusioned. The NAACP was careful to steer clear of communist involvement, even in such a high-profile case as that of the Scottsboro Boys. CPers were very effective union organizers, but the AFL-CIO expelled communists in the late 1940s Liberal Senator Hubert Humphrey was a strong anti-communist, and of course the only actual hot wars against communism were fought by liberal presidents. In New York, when the CP took over the American Labor Party, liberals left and formed the Liberal Party. When, in 1948, Henry Wallace's Progressive Party was taken over by the communists, most liberals left and voted for Truman. The Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) was formed by intellectuals like Sidney Hook and Arthur Schlesinger jr. as a liberal but anti-communist organization.
Liberals did protest against the actions of Senator Joseph McCarthy and his imitators. This enabled some conservatives to accuse them of favoring communism. Many liberals criticized the size of American military expenditures during the Cold War, particularly the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. This enabled some conservatives to accuse liberals of favoring communism. Many liberals did oppose the Vietnam War, which enabled some conservatives to accuse them of favoring communism. Obviously neither opposing McCarthy or U.S. nuclear stockpiles or the Vietnam War imply sympathy with communism.
There is a huge bibliography on these issues. A good brief introduction is John Diggins's The American Left in the Twentieth Century, which is from 1973. I would be glad to provide additional scholarly references.
Sincerely,
Daniel Levine
Department of History
Cup policy was a student-led initiative
To the Editors:
I am writing in response to last week's letter by Pat Rockefeller, James Weeks, Henry Brennan, and Joseph Brazzi. In their letter, they describe the "small tyrannies" and "injustices" carried out by Sustainable Bowdoin in their effort to remove paper cups from Moulton Dining Hall. As a member of Sustainable Bowdoin, I intend to correct several errors made by Rockefeller and company.
First, the writers indicate that this campaign might have been acceptable if it had been a student led initiative. Had they actually researched the issue, they would have found that this campaign was not "dictatorially" executed by Sustainable Bowdoin leader Keisha Payson, but was rather suggested and agreed upon by over 20 members of Sustainable Bowdoin, all of who are students here at Bowdoin College. I am the person who asked Moulton to put this idea into practice. While I had Keisha's support, I want to make it clear that this was, in fact, a student led initiative.
The second issue I would like to address is the economic relevance of this initiative. If the writers of last week's letter are not persuaded by the economics of this issue, then perhaps it is because this initiative is not economically driven. Sustainable Bowdoin's interest in this issue was purely environmental, with the added bonus that the dining hall would save $4,000.
Lastly I would like to comment on the letter itself. The lack of research alone makes the entry reprehensible. The insinuations that the reach of Sustainable Bowdoin is approaching a tyranny and that Keisha executed this idea without student input and for personal gain indicate a degree of immaturity that I am appalled to find at an institution such as Bowdoin.
While the removal of the paper cups will not tip the scales of global paper consumption, this is a tiny step that we at Bowdoin can take to help reduce the demand on the world's forests. Our goals may be small, but I think it is important that we make efforts to improve our relationship with the environment. Our only alternative is inaction. I'm sure there are many students who share my interest in doing what we can, and I think it is unfortunate that a few detractors are the only ones making their voices heard.
Rockefeller et al., it would behoove you to do some research before libeling your fellow community members.
Sincerely,
Josh Atwood '04
To the Editors:
In last week's Orient, Michael Saur, a recent grad, wrote in response to my article about voting not being a cure for apathy, or a substitute for civic engagement. My conclusion was that those who are apathetic, don't understand the issues, and really don't care should not be harassed about voting.
Saur accuses me of writing this because I do not want liberals to vote. To defend this death-defying leap of logic, he puts aside those critical skills he learned at Bowdoin and ignores the fact that no mention of ideology, party identification or constituency was present in my article. He instead subscribes to the Miss-Cleo-psychic-hotline school of thought and merely hypothesizes my intent.
Saur also pulls out the boogey-man of all secular thought, invoking the haunting image of the-gasp-Christian Coalition, although I am about as agnostic as one can be. I can see the hamster running on the wheel right now-hmmm…Rockefeller is a conservative; therefore, everything he writes is a subconscious attempt to promote the Religious Right and undermine the Democratic Party on behalf of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Stick to the text, Mike.
Next, he concludes, "By voting, a person has ceased, at least to an extent, to be apathetic." If spending four minutes to walk into a polling station and pull a lever constitutes "ceasing to be apathetic," perhaps Saur is correct. This does not mean that they are in the least bit educated about what they are voting for or against, and if this is the extent of their participation in the political process then it is a sad day for democracy.
Most ridiculous, however, is Saur's conclusion. He finishes with, "I choose to exercise my right to vote…and I am terribly sorry if my personal decisions at the polls might not mirror Mr. Rockefeller's own." The point was never that people didn't have a right to vote or had to agree with me; on the contrary, I made it quite clear that people did have a right to vote any way they wanted, but that it came with a responsibility. To conclude with a sarcastic remark about his not agreeing with me, which was premised on his own conjecture, and not something I ever wrote, shows that Saur was never really interested in the arguments, and merely reacted with knee-jerk criticism, misrepresenting my words and never offering a true argument of his own.
Sincerely,
Patrick Rockefeller '03
To the Editors:
Todd Buell is wrong. Moving right is the last thing the Democrats need to do. Why did Nader get so many votes in 2000? Because many people perceived the two-party system as a two-headed monster, and didn't want to choose "the lesser of two evils." Thanks to Nader's strong showing, the election was close enough that the ruthless Republican party was able to steal it with some help from the Supreme Court, whose members should be impeached for that ridiculous misuse of power.
Buell advises that the Democratic party should try to attract back the "Reagan Democrats," who would give valuable numbers of votes but who are against such things as abortion rights and marijuana legalization, viewing them as "morally wrong." Why would the Democrats want these people in their fold? America is overwhelmingly pro-choice. Republicans are split on the issue, but the religious right holds a lot of power in their party, so the Democrats are, at least on the national level, the party of abortion rights. Why abandon such a popular position?
The Democrats are having an identity crisis, and they need to show the strong differences between the parties. These same Republicans who are morally against abortion are morally for "the right to bear arms," which leads to the death of people who have actually been born and can think. The Second Amendment needs to be repealed.
The right is also routinely against freedom of speech in the name of "family values." Unfortunately, this is one position that the Gores and Joe Lieberman are also misguided on, as they crusade against music and movies. Censorship is wrong in all cases; free speech is the most important thing about America and should be ultimate. Eminem should be allowed to say whatever he wants in his songs. I should be able to stand on a corner in D.C. and say I'm going to shoot the President without being jailed.
To have a chance in 2004 and beyond, the Democrats need to grow some balls and stand up against President Shrub and his corrupt regime. They didn't even challenge the Republican incumbents for House and Senate in my voting district in Virginia; I ended up writing myself in on the ballot. The Republicans now control the Presidency and both houses, so the governing of the nation is their responsibility, giving the Democrats freedom to dissent. Bush has made war and terrorism political, you can do the same-criticize the mishandling of the situation and decrying the degradation of the country into a police state in the name of security. I'm ready to fight a revolution if it comes to that.
And in 2004, there's rage against this cowboy's record of raping the environment, and strongly promoting seeking alternative energies. We wouldn't be so involved in the whole Middle East mess in the first place if we weren't so reliant on the region for feeding our oil addiction.
Follow your liberal hearts. In the words of James Carville, "We're right, they're wrong."
Sincerely,
Ted Reinert '05
|
FastCounter by bCentral |