Wednesday, October 7, 1998
Letters
Project will kill Village
With all due respect to able Bruin (writer) Trina Enriquez, The
Bruin is not questioning the wisdom of the developers who claim to
know what will revive Westwood. As one who remembers when the
Village was a thriving – albeit more boring – enterprise, I find it
ironic to note that the very medicine these johnny-come-lately
developers prescribe – more upscale stores, more high-priced
restaurants, more theatres, more this, more that, more, more, more
– is precisely what caused the Village to flail to begin with.
The Village used to be just that – a village. It rolled the
sidewalks up at night, save for a few movie theatres, a couple of
restaurants and a bookstore or two. It existed on student and
neighborhood traffic.
During the day, longtime businesses catered to a limited but
faithful area clientele who were drawn to the Village’s aesthetic
architecture and its untrendy and uncrowded reputation. The key to
its stability was proportional economy – a.k.a. village
economy.
Sometime in the ’70s, developers hatched the idea that the
Village – despite that it had a dearth of parking – could be made
into a "happening place." They bid up the property, incurred huge
debts and opened trendy businesses that could not be financially
sustained.
Square footage costs in Westwood were off the real estate map.
The disco mentality of the decade transformed the staid, but
affordable Village into a burned out hull of glitterized,
overpriced and, ultimately, itinerant business failures. In that,
it was a perfect metaphor for that sorry decade.
The Village economy is so screwed up that even McDonald’s
failed! When McDonald’s fails, any developer worth his or her salt
should stop and ask, "Is the cost of doing business in the Village
too high?"
The answer is yes. The answer is less, not more.
Marc Mayerson
Assistant dean of social sciences
College of Letters and Science
‘Sorry’ is not enough
It is interesting, though all too common it seems, to see
someone completely ignore the important points of the Clinton
crises and scandals. (Solomon Mastas’ article "Political leaders
persecute for personal gain," from Viewpoint, Oct. 2, 1998).
First, Mastas forgets that the first article of impeachment
against President Nixon was that he lied and deceived the public
(something which Clinton continues to do).
It is suggested that the people forgive him, as shown in the job
performance polls, and that we should just drop the whole thing. If
this were just about sex and nothing else, Matsas may have an
arguing point.
But it is not just about sex. Clinton’s accused of committing
serious felonies – crimes for which people have gone to jail for
long periods of time. True, sex is not a crime, but perjury is –
even if it is in a civil court case, especially if it is to a
criminal grand jury.
The offenses outlined by Independent Counsel Ken Starr are
serious and (below treason and bribery) are the most serious and
impeachable offenses possible (e.g. perjury, witness tampering,
obstruction of justice and abuse of power). A crime can not be
taken back, and punishment cannot be avoided simply by saying "I’m
sorry." Anyone else would be in jail now.
The president is not above the law. He should face the same
punishment as anyone else if found guilty, and he lacks the
necessary credence required from a president.
Also, this is about hypocrisy on the part of so-called feminist
organizations. If Clinton were a corporate CEO or a conservative,
the National Organization for Women (NOW) and a plethora of other
organizations would be howling for his removal, and they would be
persecuting him. Yet they do not do it here.
The reason is obvious – they don’t care about women, only about
getting political table scraps from the president.
Even Barbara Boxer was both late and tepid in her response to
Clinton, and still campaigns with him for the sake of money. When
it was a conservative, she attacked, even before the facts were in.
(Does Clarence Thomas ring a bell?)
The excuses being made, such as that Clinton is a victim of
Monica Lewinsky, who preyed upon the loneliness of his office, do
nothing but smash everything that feminist organizations have
attempted to achieve.
It must also be noted that conservatives such as Helen
Chenoworth, Henry Hyde and Dan Burton have been far more honest
about their sexual past.
The difference between them and Clinton is clear: they told the
truth, which Clinton committed crime after a crime to cover up.
Daniel B. Rego
Third-year pre-political science student Member of Young
Americans for Freedom
and Secretary of the Bruin Republicans
Gore, Newt not better than Bill
This letter is in response to the (articles) by Martin Chippas
and Matt Nagel (Viewpoint, Oct. 5, 1998).
First, I would like to commend you on your active participation
in our political society. Your editorials run along the lines of
many of our fellow citizens’ beliefs. Although I agree with your
assessment of what Clinton has done during his scandal-filled
administration, I do not agree with the punishments you have
suggested, namely resignation or impeachment.
The people of the United States have enough embarrassment to
bare, not to mention the bill from the investigation. We do not
need to add the problems the impeachment process will bring. We
elected two liars not once, but twice (Bill and Al). By allowing
Clinton and Gore to finish their terms of embarrassment, it will
give us a better opportunity to learn from our mistakes. Hopefully,
we will become more selective of our representation in our future
local, state and national elections.
Also, for those of you who are unfamiliar with the presidential
line of succession, I suggest you become knowledgeable on the
subject. According to our glorious Constitution, "If, by reason of
death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to
qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to
discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then
the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his
resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as
President." I am sure that if Al became president, the
investigation currently under way would become more vigorous as
well as expensive. Also, please let me remind you, our current
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, is far from
scandal free.
I again applaud you for living up to your civic obligation and
becoming politically aware. If America had more people like you and
your fellow writers, we may have never been put into this situation
in the first place, but we are, so, let us move forward as a nation
and begin to elect better representation.
Christopher M. Green
Second-year history student
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]