Letters to the editor

Nuclear war? Total bummer ...

Monika Jones' "Nuclear war? Nuclear summer?" (June 4) has left me speechless. "I am living in a land where the only conflict is a gentle breeze of problems that sometimes makes me cold"?! Where is this land?

In my country, my government is laying - brick by brick - the foundation for a "preemptive strike" against Iraq. In my country, our government has been selling us increased security and surveillance - the Patriot Act is just one example - while we are learning with each new day how the old security and surveillance knew more than a little about a terrorist attack on U.S. soil and Muslims with al-Qaida connections in flight school. In my country, it's easier to be jailed for owning a Muslim business than it is to be convicted of accounting fraud. This ain't no gentle breeze.

The way we choose to live in this country has a direct effect on the rest of the world. What does it mean to live in a country that habitually misses the connection between its actions and world affairs? What does it mean to be that top 1 percent of the world that actually has the chance to go to college - and to conclude that, so long as nuclear war doesn't melt your flesh, you're doing pretty well ... "comparatively"?

If these thoughts make you feel angry or guilty; use your privilege and influence to do something about it. Peace.

Stephanie Saline

graduate student, college of education

Solutions, please!

Being environmentally conscious and concerned for the health of others, I was extremely disappointed in your "Waste not, dump not" staff editorial. Not only is its message dangerous, but also offers no realistic solutions for the problems and solutions it criticizes -- an inherent weakness in environmental activism.

Two reasons are given as to why the waste should not be stored at Yucca Mountain, which may be perfectly valid, but what is an alternative? It is easy to complain about any means of disposing of nuclear waste -- it is radioactive and extremely hazardous. Instead of offering a different course of action, you say we simply have to accept the fact we cannot safely deal with the waste. How will that make the world a safer place?

We better figure out how to deal with it carefully. The disposal of radioactive waste is an immediate problem that needs to be solved. If we don't, the federal government might as well mail a pound of radioactive slop to every American citizen and end the suffering as soon as possible. Simply switching to solar/wind power will never happen -- it is impossible -- and is not the short-term answer we need. Political and economic forces won't allow it. We're going to have to slowly wean ourselves off nuclear, hydroelectric, and fossil-fuel power sources. Therefore, we must find means of being more efficient and safe using them, not just float around meaningless pipe dreams and rhetoric.

Tyson Burchak

junior, philosophy, history

Pay the profs!

I entirely agree with your recent staff editorial on how zero percent of the proceeds from our latest tuition increase went toward increasing faculty salaries ("You have to wonder what they're thinking," May 30). Your point on the brewing troubles possible with faculty collective-bargaining rights was insightful, something I had not yet considered.

Where did the money go?

Comparing the multiple cranes over campus with the departments I am in closest contact with, what evidence I do have of the allocation of money is disturbing. We now have some new buildings and a very brightly colored designer cafeteria, but there isn't enough money to keep English professors from leaving at alarming rates. There was an article about this on the front page of the P-I a few weeks ago. That was embarrassing. But who can blame them? Figures showed that pay here at UW is drastically lower than at comparable institutions. As a result, talented minds leave and classes are cut. There is also some of this in the philosophy department, where a variety of concepts, and world views are not being taught in the department due to lack of qualified teachers. The "brain drain" seems very real to me, and I fear that over time it will regard students as much as teachers.

Ignoring the traditional purpose of a university (teaching and learning) will, in the long run, make the concrete hollow, resources go unused and buildings empty.

To whom this may concern, please reconsider the allocation of funds.

Rachel J. Grad

junior, English, philosophy

Social Security works for us

Josh Kahn's diatribe on the Social Security System ("Social insecurity," May 20) deserves a response.

There are two reasons UW students should be concerned about the health of the supplemental retirement system, Social Security. First is the one treated by Kahn: Will the investments you make today in the government's system be there for you when you retire? By taking the party line, he misrepresents both the health of the Social Security trust fund and its return on investment. The solvency of the trust fund is now estimated to extend beyond 2040 - and these estimates continually lengthen the life of the trust fund. By many measures, after-tax and inflation-corrected returns are equivalent or better than most bond funds. Yes, Social Security will be there for you when you retire.

There is a second reason to support the current system. With Social Security helping our parents' retirement, we don't need to support them. We, as children of seniors, then have these dollars for house payments and our own children's needs. Here's an analogy: Say Kahn has a full scholarship to the UW. His parents don't have to pay for his schooling and they can place these funds in their retirement accounts. Even if Kahn may be willing to help his retired parents and grandparents, this was not always the case. Before Social Security, many seniors starved and died penniless and homeless. Social Security is one of the most successful government programs ever. The funds for privatization were to come from the Social Security surplus. This surplus has been eliminated by the Bush 10-year $1.5 trillion deficit. Privatizing Social Security puts our and our parents' retirements at great risk.

Steve Reynolds

UW staff

You discredit yourself

For the past year I have read Hashem Said's tirades about Israel. With every article I read I become more and more angry, not about the content necessarily (which I find disturbing), but about the tone and language of his articles.

In his latest piece ("The only solution," June 3), he includes terms like "Zionist forces," which create an imagery of trained soldiers rather than pioneers and Holocaust survivors defending themselves in 1948. In fact, as history proves, these "Zionist forces" were actually protecting themselves against trained armies from Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia; it appeared to the world that the Jews would be driven into the sea.

The statement "Next to the Holocaust, there has been no greater tragedy ... than the creation of an Israeli state," is incredibly offensive. I doubt that those that died in the Russian Revolution, which massacred more than 10 million people would agree with him. As for other horrible tragedies, the brutal murder of more than 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda, comes to mind. In stating that the creation of an Israeli state is a tragedy, he neglects the fact that Israel has served as refuge for Jews from Yemen, Syria, Ethiopia and Russia. Said apparently forgets these and other historical events when he tries to use scare tactics to continue to hold his reader's attention.

If Said truly wants to write about a solution to the current conflict in the Middle East, he must be an honest writer. His misuse of wording and his shock tactics discredit him as an author.

Elana Okrent

sophomore, business

Be responsible

As much as I hate to concede to Hashem Said any degree of journalistic legitimacy by responding to his most recent column, it is important for readers of The Daily to understand the extent of his factual omissions.

Said refers to a certain 1948 episode wherein "Zionist forces came in and exiled nearly 800,000 Palestinians." He fails to note two things. First, this was a defensive response to the simultaneous invasion of the fledgling Jewish state by five Arab armies that intended to destroy Israel. Second, the Palestinians were invited into Jordan for the duration of this war because Jordan fully expected to quickly overcome Israel, then give it to the Palestinians. The "refugee problem" was created when the Arabs lost the war, then Jordan reneged on its invitation.

Said continues, "In 1967, more Palestinians were ejected from Israel, and the West Bank and Gaza were occupied." He conveniently omits, first, that Israel captured these areas after a massive Arab offensive against Israel, and second, that the West Bank was already occupied by Jordan before being captured by Israel.

To Hashem himself: Your invocation of Judaism as a cause for the Mideast violence is a repulsive and dirty connotation reminiscent of 1939 Germany. Obviously your support for a Palestinian state won't falter, but uphold your responsibilities as a journalist: Supply your readers with complete information; don't try to bend history toward your ends; attack ideas, not religions. This school may one day take you seriously.

David Lukas

sophomore, business, philosophy