Free speech Fridays

Nader campaign

Clearing misconceptions

In Thursday's "The Nader Dilemma," Phil Duncan states that Ralph Nader's chief goal as a political activist and presidential candidate is to "give people more voices and choices" and also to "get Bush out of office." This is simply not the case. Since his first presidential bid in 1992, Nader has made it abundantly clear that he has no love for either Democrats nor Republicans. In fact, Nader's main position in 2000 was that both parties were so aggravatingly similar that there could be no clear distinction between the two. In 2004 he has gone a step farther and abandoned even the Green Party to run as a full independent, effectively cutting ties with any kind of party affiliation.

To suggest that Nader step down and put his support behind a Democratic candidate of choice does a sharp injustice to his cause as a consumer advocate. Just because Nader and the Democratic Party occupy the same side of the political spectrum does not mean that they are one and the same or ever should be. Even though I would not vote for Nader, I admire him for sticking to his guns for a cause that is still unpopular with both major parties and for a great majority of Americans.

-- Adam Baldridge

senior, political science

Complaints misplaced

In response to so many Democrats who are crying foul over Ralph Nader entering the presidential race, all I can say is this: Quit your whining. It's true, if a scant 537 of Nader's nearly 100,000 votes had gone to Gore in 2000, he would be president now. But 200,000 registered Democrats voted for Bush. Do you think maybe a few of them could've swung your way as well?

I have a solution for you. Whether you think Kerry, Edwards, Nader, Kucinich, Sharpton or Bush is the candidate for you, go out and share your opinion with other people if you feel the need to. If you spend all your time now complaining about a third-party candidate thinning the numbers on your side, perhaps you should be more concerned with how well your candidate represents the interests of the people rather than how well the people will accommodate themselves to a candidate they inherently disagree with.

-- Glenn Bristol

freshman, premajor

Graduate Union

Represent yourself

How many graduate students does it take to change a light bulb? A majority of graduate students whovote to do so; then they get a union to do it for them, even though the other graduate students were trying to sleep and didn't want the light turned on.

One issue with unionization is that graduate students from all programs are being lumped together into one bargaining unit. Why should philosophy and biology graduate students be in the same union when those two groups have entirely different work situations, (both problems and benefits) and therefore different issues to address? If graduate students unionize, it should be done on a program-by-program basis, not a University-wide one.

We were not forced to enter graduate school. We chose to be graduate students knowing how much we would be paid, what our insurance coverage would be, and how many classes we would be expected to teach. Individual dissatisfaction with one's professional situation should be addressed on an individual basis. Don't get a union to fight your battles for you.

Even though it seems un-American to do so, I implore each graduate student not only to think about how unionization may benefit you personally but also about the impact of your vote on your friends and colleagues. A "no" vote is a vote for freedom of individual choice and for holding individuals responsible for the life choices they have made.

-- Joseph A. Ross

graduate student,

molecular and cell biology

Never know unless you try

The election to certify the graduate student union will take place from Feb. 25 and the ballots are due March 17. As a result, I have already read letters in The Daily complaining about the union dues, encouraging students to vote no. According to the letter that was mailed to me, the union dues will be approximately 2 percent of my stipend. This is approximately $20. A few times every month, once or twice, I indulge myself with an expensive restaurant where I pay the same amount. I also rent a few movies, and go to coffeehouses. So I don't consider this a big deal. Some students say that it is not fair that those who do not wish to be members of the union have to pay reduced union fees. Perhaps. But it also wouldn't be fair for them to enjoy the benefits of union negotiations without paying anything.

Having said that, the heart of the matter is really simple. Our health benefits are insultingly pathetic. We're entering a period of extreme economic instability, and that is an understatement. Without a union our health benefits would be cut out further as the state goes increasingly bankrupt and implements austerity measures. With the union we have the possibility to resist, thus reducing the incentive to the University to save money by going after all the easy targets first. With the union we become a less easy target. Will the union actually be effective enough? I don't know. And we won't find out until we get them certified. The only thing that is certain is that without the union, our health benefits will be at the top of the list for budget cuts. And if you are really pessimistic about the union, at least do something to elect the only presidential candidate that speaks the truth about the state of our economy; the one that the media doesn't talk about.

-- Eleftherios Gkioulekas

applied mathematics

daily inserts

Recycling problem

I was stirred initially by the glossy Sports Illustrated cruft that fell out of my copy of The Daily. My interest was further piqued by the front-page article about recycling. What a coincidence. I think one of the biggest eyesores on campus (and a significant recycling problem I'd imagine) are these ridiculous inserts that go into The Daily. I appreciate the importance of the revenue that they must bring in, but it seems that there could be some initiative to provide recycling, or at least trash facilities in close proximity to all paper stands (i.e. right in front). Because seriously ... Sports Illustrated Road Trip? What the hell?

-- Kolbe Kegel

senior, informatics,

linguistics and Spanish

intermission: Nostalgia

Comics will always have a place

James Sutter's article "Oh comics, where art thou?" (Feb. 26) makes a valid point. The comics page is a glorious anachronism in a culture in which virtually all popular media is appropriately criticized as sensationalist and commercialized. Whereas it is difficult to endure exposure to the majority of current media content without wincing, reading the comics is like visiting an old friend. Untainted by advertisements and mass marketing, the comics page is a refreshingly pure forum for artistic expression, political satire and social commentary. Compare the mindless voyeurism of reality TV to the witty and literate humor of Jimmy Johnson's Arlo & Janis, or the savvy and sarcastic honesty of Delainey and Rasmussen's Betty. The comics explore interpersonal relationships, family dynamics and modern culture in a manner that is timeless, and my God, hilarious. James Sutter is correct in his implication that while 1995 was a sad year in newspaper humor, the comics did not die with Bill Watterson, Gary Larson and Berkeley Breathed and neither will they ever die. However, as much as his article tracks truth and sanity, Sutter is utterly wrong on one point: his claim that Peanuts is not funny. Peanuts is as funny today as it has been since childhood. Maybe he was thinking of Gasoline Alley.

-- Danny Stallings

senior, math and philosophy

Conduct code

Illogical investment

During a time when our university is faced with substantially increasing tuition and not enough cash flow to attract, maintain and adequately compensate highly competent and qualified faculty, I cannot understand the need to consider raising parking fees on campus and not to mention a state budgetary crisis. They are considering implementing another policy that will cost more than $320,000 with no empirical evidence that the policy will even be effective. I can't believe that we are hearing the same people who only a few weeks ago were whining about these very issues, are now suggesting we implement and enforce this vague and "one-size-fits all" policy that will cost even more cash that we simply do not have. While I am unsure if this expense will be incurred every year, one fact remains: Our state and university are in extreme financial distress and should not spend precious funds on this poor policy.

According to The Daily, UW and Central Washington University are the only state schools that do not have a policy like this; so, I can assume that Washington State University does? Students there seem oblivious that this policy even exists -- I have visited friends there numerous times and this is the first I have heard of it. Further, given the typical Friday and Saturday nights in Pullman, I doubt if most of them have either as it obviously has proven ineffective at deterring anything from happening.

The administration and state officials have yet to present any unbiased evidence that this policy will be worth the money it will cost to implement and enforce. Implementing this policy would end up being nothing more than another waste of taxpayers' and students' money on another lame excuse for a state-sponsored "in the best interest of the public" program.

-- Kristopher Kitz

senior, business administration