Americans disagree with funding foreign
abortions I am a little bit dismayed at the disservice
that your editorial makes in informing your readers about President
Bush’s first act in office (“Political
agenda will hurt women worldwide,” Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Feb. 1). Rescinding the abortion order ““ a
President Clinton order that used U.S. tax dollars to support
groups that provided abortions and abortion counseling for women
from developing countries and even lobbied governments for changes
in abortion laws ““ seemed tough, but was in fact moderate.
Mr. Bush was essentially returning to U.S. policy before the
Clinton era. Bill Clinton, in breaking with that former policy, had
taken a radical step that severed policy from prudence in a stark
and showy way. It was strange to decide to fund groups that give
foreign women the chance to have an abortion. When there is an
issue that is so charged, so divisive that for more than a quarter
of a century it has disturbed the peace of your huge and passionate
nation, does it make sense to export that issue so it can roil
other nations? Is that wise, or even friendly? Or is it conceited
and aggressive? I’m sick at the thought of this. The Clinton
decision reflected the way abortion in the past eight years became
an issue dominated by radical thinking and by extremist views. The
logic of this attitude seems to be that if we like abortion then
you must like abortion; if we like abortion then any restriction on
it whatsoever, any limit, even in the eighth month, is bad, and
must be stopped. If abortion is a legitimate act then it is
legitimate at all times and in all ways. And if you have qualms or
questions about this then you are the enemy, you are insufficiently
supportive of women’s rights, you must be defeated at all
costs. It was all so radical. And it may ultimately prove the
undoing of abortion proponents. They have ceded all claim to
reasonableness. They look radical because they are. Mr.
Bush’s decision seems to reflect a mindset he revealed in one
of his election debates with Al Gore, when he said he favored a
stance of humility toward the world. He’s so modest he
won’t tell other people they should have abortions just
because we have made abortion into an ideology. Mr. Bush’s
decision has been compared to Mr. Clinton’s attempt to
rescind the ban on active and public homosexuals in the military.
But the rescinding of that ban, apart from all issues of rightness
or wrongness, practicality or helpfulness, did not have half the
country behind it, or a quarter of the country behind it. Nor did
it have the American military behind it. It had organized
homosexual-rights groups that had funded and supported Mr. Clinton
in the just-ended election behind it. If you ask the American
people if they want to spend money to promote abortion overseas,
the majority would say no.
Brian Goldenfeld Woodland Hills
Column promotes stereotypes I was reading the
Daily Bruin the other morning when I came across something that
caught my eye. It wasn’t on the Viewpoint page; however, it
certainly does belong there. Jeff Kmiotek’s column,
articulately titled “Super
Bowl waste of time, and most of the commercials sucked a lot,
too,“ (Sports, Jan. 31) contained a comment that I must
say I did not enjoy reading. And I quote: “The Budweiser
commercial where a bunch of white yuppies picked up the phone
yelling, “˜What are you doing?’ was good. I like when
white guys are mocked for trying to act black while actually acting
extremely white. Word to your mother, G.” First of all, what
exactly is “acting black” and “acting extremely
white?” Why couldn’t they have been “acting
Latino” or “acting Asian?” And by them
“trying,” what is it exactly that they are trying to
do? I talked to a few other people, all of mixed races, about
whether they thought it was an odd statement, and they agreed. I
mean, who is to say that someone is “acting black” or
“acting extremely white?” Taken in context, I would be
forced to believe that “acting black” is being loud,
boisterous and ignorant, while “acting extremely white”
is the total opposite. Is this really true? If so, then what is
“acting Latino” or “acting Asian?” I am
aware that Kmiotek’s column was one of pure opinion, but why
publish stereotypes and promote them across a sea of over 30,000
students?
Shoshana Muhammad First-year Communication
studies