Hovannisian distorts CalPIRG’s mission,
goals
In Garin Hovannisian’s column “Government interests
drive activist group” (Nov. 12), he paralleled CalPIRG pledge
week to George Orwell’s “1984,” claiming that the
activist organization was contributing to the creation of a Big
Brother government. His interpretation drastically distorted the
influence that CalPIRG has in politics, indicating that it exists
only to give the government greater power over our lives.
Actually, CalPIRG gives students greater power over policy by
spreading awareness and giving students a voice in policy making.
The best practical application for any organization would be to
keep students involved in this process, rather than allowing them
to be ignored and silenced.
Hovannisian may believe increasing government regulation of
major corporations is constricting upon the rights of individuals,
but he should consider where he has chosen to place his trust
““ in financial motivations of others.
For example, take financially motivated lobbyist No. 1: fossil
fuel and nuclear energy industries. They have funneled millions
into campaign funding and are now prepared to reap the benefits of
relaxed pollution standards in Bush’s upcoming energy bill.
This not only would mean more pollution in our air and groundwater,
but millions of our public tax dollars spent on cleaning up the
mess these industries leave behind. I fail to see how
“private individuals with financial motivations” are
more effective in helping either the environment or us, and I would
never trust them to uphold anyone’s best interests except
their own.
James Ch’ng First-year, mechanical
engineering
Leung wrong about who should start for UCLA
Diamond Leung’s column “Dorrell’s quarterback
flip-flop a bad move” (Nov. 12) has finally put me over the
edge.
I have been reading his pro-Matt Moore articles since Day 1 and
have been disappointed by such blind writing. He ignores the
blatant facts and comes up with absurd arguments to support
Moore.Â
Leung is relentless in his support for an unproductive
quarterback. Moore is 1-3 in his starts, with a 1:3 touchdown to
interception ratio. Sure he’s touted for his strong arm, but
since when are we a deep ball offense, and since when did strength
override accuracy?
I am sick of sports writers’ obeying the scouting reports
written by high school athlete recruiters and regurgitating the
hype for Moore (i.e. arm strength).
It doesn’t take an expert to recognize that Drew Olson is
having more success on the field. Moore has received much more hype
coming out of high school than Olson did, so it’s not
surprising for Leung to hitch on his bandwagon. My high school
football coach used to always preach that reputation would only
take you so far, but you have to back it up sooner or later.
Moore supporters would point to Olson’s lack of mobility.
Last I checked, Moore got sacked eight times against a weak
Stanford defense. Aside from holding onto the ball too long, he
doesn’t look comfortable in the pocket.
Olson is the best chance for victory, especially against those
hated Trojans.
Matt Guibert Third-year, cognitive science