 |
|
     |
|
|
Life in the co-ops I enjoyed the article on the history of the co-ops ("Making a house a home," November). I note the point about open enrollment at the "theme houses," but, as a white, middle-aged man, I am offended by African-American, lesbian-gay, and women-only houses. I suggest that there would be a substantial outcry if the co-op endeavored to establish a white male theme house. If such an establishment would be an affront to many people on campus, why are these other "theme houses" not an affront to diversity on campus? David H. Colton '68, MBA '72 Greenbrae I lived in Barrington Hall my first year at Berkeley, 1960-61. It was a madhouse zoo with all-night poker games and "milk parties" (beer was of course forbidden by law), and seemed at any moment to have at least 50 percent female residents who were holding down work shifts for their hung-over boyfriends, who one can only presume were suffering from too much milk. My first job was an introductory course in surrealism: I had never cooked a thing in my life, so I was made Friday night chef. That first Friday, the Central Kitchen van delivered 200 pieces of frozen fish and 200 frozen hamburger patties two hours before dinner. What emerged from my frantic stove two hours later was 400 indescribable objects, scorched black outside, frozen solid inside, and dripping with oil. And every last one of them came hurtling back at me through the serving window between the kitchen and the dining room. Life at Barrington only got more interesting from there. David Pollack '65, M.A. '68, Ph.D. '76 Rochester, New York A wrong turn? The Monthly is to be commended for giving equal time and space to such an important issue as "Has the United States taken a wrong turn?" (November). What I found most disturbing (indeed, absurd) was Professor Littlejohn's conviction that this is "the most dangerous administration in America's history," which raises the question of where he was during the McCarthy era; the Cuban missile crisis, when the Kennedy administration took us to the brink of nuclear disaster; the Johnson/Nixon administrations, when Viet Nam polarized and tore up our society so badly; and the Nixon years, when that President (and his administration) tried to reinterpret the Constitution. Where does this administration stand on that scale? Certainly not at the top. Turning to Professor Muir's position, I am somewhat surprised by his rather optimistic view that a liberated and stabilized Iraq (is it really possible to stabilize Iraq?) might help stabilize the Middle East. Having worked in the Middle East (as well as in several Pacific Rim countries with Muslim populations), it has been my experience that the monolithic religious cultures are so far removed from democracy that they may, unfortunately, remain so for many decades to come. The desire for economic betterment (by the people) does not necessarily equate to a turn towards social democracy. To assume so takes a leap of faith. For Professor Littlejohn to conclude that we are on the road to hell seems to be too harsh a prediction, while the optimism of Professor Muir seems almost utopian. Franklin J. Agardy, Ph.D. '63 Hillsborough David Littlejohn confirmed my fears and opinions on why we went to war. The counterargument by William K. Muir Jr. reflects the arrogance and short-sightedness of our current administration. Emily Newell '68 Daly City The wrong turn came in November 2000. It went to the foundation underlying both the "yes" and "no" arguments in the November issue: the character of the United States as a democracy. The usurpation by the Supreme Court of the power to determine the outcome of a Presidential election has brought to pass the danger the Founders sought to avert. The remaining question is, when will the Republic end? Unfortunately, David Littlejohn's analogy of the present to 1932 Munich may be all too apt. J. Perry Langford '49 San Diego Sandy Muir's political science classes were a huge influence on me at Cal. The greatest lesson he taught was his energetic passion for our system of government; and he instilled--browbeat--into his students the lesson that cynicism towards politics was counterproductive. I still hold that lesson close to my heart, but I also believe that the current administration has taken a wrong turn in its response to terrorism. Professor Muir's piece left me with conflicted feelings. On the one hand, his unmistakable optimism shone through; on the other hand, I felt that this optimism toward the Bush administration's actions was grossly misplaced. More important, I believe that, in this particular circumstance, a fine line must be drawn between cynicism and constructive criticism. I certainly agree that it would be cynical to say that oil interests in Iraq are President Bush's sole preoccupation. However, Professor Littlejohn's point is that the administration took advantage of the American public's feelings of anger and insecurity after 9/11 in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. I agree with Professor Muir's assertion that freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's ruthless dictatorship was reason enough to go to war. Sadly, President Bush decided to pander to the public's feelings of insecurity in order to justify the invasion, by citing links between Iraq and al Qaeda, and a vast stockpile of dirty weapons--neither of which have been proven to date. Eric Chang '98 Paris, France William Muir's rebuttal of David Littlejohn serves as a perfect example of the hubris demonstrated by the Bush administration and its neocon operatives. First, he cleverly attacks Littlejohn's patriotism by implying that David knows little of the value of constitutional democracy. On the contrary, Littlejohn devoted over half of his essay to enumerating the undemocratic and, some would say, unconstitutional actions taken in supposed defense of the American Way and under the deceptively named Patriot Act. Muir's tagged-on rebuttal, although cleverly worded--we're in the "twilight" of our war on terrorism and only a "particular precaution" or two might need tweaking--is an anemic defense of an act that needs more than tweaking: It needs to be repealed. Second, Muir all but baldly states that the American version of social democracy is the only viable version, and goes on to arrogantly aver that it is our manifest destiny ("thrust upon us") to unilaterally promulgate it throughout the world. If Muir thinks that what the U.S. has accomplished in Iraq and Afganistan has successfully given those societies the "civilized forms" of political and economic models necessary for success, he is sadly mistaken. Larry Hartsough '65, Ph.D. '71 Berkeley Professor Littlejohn addresses the fundamental issue facing this nation: Should we abandon the basic rules governing our conduct in the world and within our own borders, or impose our might and points of view by force, in defiance of the very principles that have guided this country since its founding? Professor Muir marshals only the current crop of excuses to justify our doing just that. We can all agree with him that Saddam is a bad guy and treated his people shamefully, but Muir fails to make the case that he posed a direct threat to this country. A.L. Edgar '40 La Mesa I find it difficult to side with Professor Littlejohn's opinion, even though it is the most clear and literate exposition of the anti-Bush position that I have read. I find Professor Muir's comments to be not only carefully reasoned, but also reflect that he is fully cognizant of what seems to me an irrefutable fact: The United States is at war with an enemy that attacked us first, on 9/11. Robert Fisher '51 Emeryville Professor Muir's justification for the unprovoked G.W. Bush attack upon Iraq is horribly flawed for several reasons. If, as he claims, Iraq's flouting of 17 U.N. resolutions is a justification, then Israel, which has ignored over 130 U.N. resolutions, would have been the logical target instead. Furthermore, if Iraq's "annihilating entire Kurdish communities with poison gas" is justification, then the U.S. is culpable as well, since the Reagan/Bush administrations, which Muir served, was not only a very public ally of Iraq but condoned these atrocities by their deafening silence. The "root cause of anti-Americanism today" isn't, as Professor Muir claims, that America is spreading democracy through the "information revolution" which threatens existing "autocratic traditions." No, the root cause of today's terrorism and anti-Americanism throughout the world is America's narrow-minded and uncompromising pro-Israel, anti-world bias, and its down-your-throat version of democracy. Karl Kettler, MBA '66 Flemington, New Jersey I enjoyed the debate between Professors Littlejohn and Muir, but there were a couple of things wrong with it. First, it was unfair to let Muir attack Littlejohn's argument without giving Littlejohn a chance to respond in kind. It would have been interesting to see what his counter-arguments might have been. The other thing wrong was the premise that there are only two answers to the question. I believe a better answer would have been, "Maybe, and maybe not." As Voltaire put it, "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one." Richard B. Crawford '43 Roy, Washington If one can generalize about the debate by comparing Professor Littlejohn's intemperate remarks with the calm statement from Professor Muir, it would seem that the administration's critics have gone off the deep end. Professor Littlejohn's "research" (not cited) convinces him "that this is the most dangerous administration in America's history." Then, "The U.S. under President Bush is setting out to become a permanent global dictator." Give me a break. If this kind of fulmination does not call forth strong criticism from a substantial number of his colleagues, then we are in deep trouble. Rick White '58 Novato In an article which failed to address the most salient issues raised by Professor Littlejohn as to why President Bush ordered a preemptive strike against Iraq, Professor Muir offers a litany of "facts" on which, he claims, "both supporters and critics agree." The first and the last are the most telling. First: "Hussein invaded and plundered neighboring Kuwait." While many of us suspected that President Bush longed to add the final chapter to his father's 1991 war against Hussein, this is one reason I never heard from the current administration for the pre-emptive strike against Iraq. Last: that Hussein "would never have permitted international inspection of any kind without a threat of invasion." Certainly President Bush's critics, at home and abroad, would have welcomed a continuation of the U.N. inspections which had been resumed and whose interim report was received by the U.N. at the same time that Secretary Colin Powell was delivering the administration's flawed rationale/ultimatum for an immediate attack. Lacking any refutation of Professor Littlejohn's discussion, Professor Muir spent more than half of his article on an inane discussion purporting to show that "stateless terrorism" against the United States is a product of envy! If Professor Muir were following the news from Iraq today, where terrorism has found a home it never had before the invasion by the U.S., he might develop a deeper understanding of the sources of terrorism, stateless and state-sponsored. God help America if the Bushes, Cheneys, Rumsfelds, Wolfowitzes, Perles, Armitages, and Muirs of this world prevail. Margaret Ann Watson '45, M.S.W. '66 St. Helena As William Muir notes, it is vital in a free society to have "probing reporters" and "freedom of speech to neutralize official monopoly of the microphone." Thanks to David Littlejohn, we now have a pretty clear picture of the motives behind the radical and revolutionary foreign policy of "the most dangerous administration in America's history." Now, anyone who wishes, including Professor Muir, can learn of the pre-election plans for pre-emptive attack on Iraq and for world military hegemony by Msrs. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Perle and other members of the Project for a New American Century. (They are also on full display at newamericancentury.org.) Professor Littlejohn draws an appropriate parallel to the situation in Munich in 1932, when there was long delay before massive sundering of the established order was fully recognized, further extended when dissent was shouted down as unpatriotic. Facts are essential, and they must be made widely known. Let us join, Republicans and Democrats alike, to thoroughly and openly explore the facts of this revolutionary assault on our national principles and priorities. I share Professor Muir's trust that this will free us to once again pursue the fruits of democracy that he extols so eloquently. We deserve no less than liberty and justice for all. Marshall McComb '62, M.S. '63 Huntington, Oregon Theology and science  Kevin Padian ("Q&A," November) admits that "whether the universe is intelligently designed by a creator may or may not be true," but then goes on to say that this "is not a scientific question." How, may I ask, can this not be a scientific question? Isn't science supposed to be a way of finding the truth? Scientists can't simply dismiss the question as if it didn't exist. It may be true that there is no positive scientific evidence of intelligent design, but there is enough negative evidence in regard to vast "holes" in the Darwinian approach to make the question still worth investigating and debating. Richard Samuelson, Ph.D. '69 Orinda It was during my anatomy course at Cal that I first wondered about an intelligent creator as the author of the universe. I was not looking for evidence, but at the complexity that confronted me and which continues to amaze me in medical practice. The most striking fact is that everything about us is the outcome of a message. This message is being written with amino acids as the alphabet. I do not see it as out of question that the alphabet as well as its expressions have an author--much like this very sentence. To think that this biological alphabet and all of its expressions simply "wrote" themselves is not science but an act of faith. If in science we are trying to explain our observations, then the possibility of a creator may be a part of the discussion. Why is this less plausible than a theoretical evolutionary process? Theology and science have fragments of truth. I think they would be surprised how much they agree on, and how productive they could be if the name-calling would stop and actual dialogue began. Yong Lee '81, M.D. Chula Vista Years ago, after reading about attempts to pooh-pooh the bird-from-dinosaur theory, my husband, Cebe Wallace '64, paid a visit to our own half-dozen chickens darting and scratching in our front yard/field. I was pro-bird-from-dinosaur, while he leaned toward polite neutrality. When he returned to the house, he was so convinced he had seen definite signs of dinosaurs (the scaly legs, the feathers as scales, the wing structure, the movements, the eggs) that he wrote "Where Have All the 'Saurs Gone?" Oh, how were the dinosaurs stricken: Quick wipe-out or gradually sicken? Great beasts of Jurassic They weren't all massac- cred; some simply evolved and turned chicken. Susan Wallace '65 Bainbridge Island, Washington |
| |||||||||||
| About
CAA Contact
Us
Update
your Address CAA Career Opportunities Privacy Policy |
©2009 California Alumni
Association. All Rights Reserved For questions about CAA: info@alumni.berkeley.edu Technical inquiries: web@alumni.berkeley.edu
|
Alumni House Berkeley, CA 94720-7520 Toll-Free: (888) CAL-ALUM Phone: (510) 642-7026 Fax: (510) 642-6252
|
