Anti-Oscar Review Ignores Historical Fact

Dear Editor:

It’s rare that an article exposes a writer’s ignorance about history, literature and filmmaking all at once. Congratulations to Oakley Anderson-Moore for doing just that!

Placing “War of the Worlds” on the same level as Japanese internment and the Abu Ghraib scandal might be the stupidest thing I’ve heard since “Bush = Hitler” comparisons. Also, Oakley should read a history book. The atomic bomb wasn’t dropped on Japan to bring them democracy — it was dropped to end a war without the invasion of the Japanese home islands and a million Allied casualties. But hey, who gives a damn about American lives? That would be imperialist! Am I right or am I right?

Actually reading H.G. Wells might help, or even doing five minutes of research on his writings. Oakley would have discovered that far from being a valiant defender of colonized peoples, Wells was an admirer of fascism and eugenics (Read “Men Like Gods”). Oops. There goes the article!

Actually watching the movie would also be beneficial. Perhaps Oakley missed the “Occupation never works … history has proven that a thousand times” line. Then again, maybe it wasn’t missed. It just didn’t mesh with Oakley’s absurd review, and was thus conveniently forgotten.

Also, capitalizing the “I” in imperial was hilarious! Talk about fear- mongering! Keep up the good work!

— Travis Weinger

Revelle College Sophomore

Feminism Ill-Served by Guardian Columnist

Dear Editor:

I would like to comment on Natasha Naraghi’s Feb. 27 Opinion article. Miss Naraghi’s article is both structurally and conceptually weak, leaving the reader to question what point she is actually trying to make. Naraghi begins and ends her piece by referencing a diamond ad. Although this is a cute strategy, the relevance it holds to her argument is unclear. More importantly, her argument itself is unclear.

The title “Women Can Seek Fairness Without Blaming Men” seems to suggest the importance of gender equality, while the article urges young women to revert to a 1950s housewife mentality, complete with dependence on their husbands. As history has illustrated, this is clearly not the way to achieve gender equality. Naraghi uses black and white arguments to construct an immature thesis that fails to take into account a vast middle ground between two extremes.

Naraghi’s statements are sometimes so out of touch with reality that her article can hardly be taken seriously. She states that “while women might like to think they’re as brave and combative as most men, they’re not likely willing to go to war over it.” What about all the women who currently serve voluntarily in the armed services? Naraghi dismisses this demographic entirely.

Naraghi states that “the women of the world [are to either] be mothers or business executives” and that women should only have careers that enable them to work from home as they raise their children. In arguing this, she assumes that it is the ambition of every woman to get married and become a mom, quite an odd way of thinking for a student at one of the top universities in the nation. She fails to address any possible destiny for women other than motherhood.

Naraghi even goes so far as to suggest that the degrees women earn in college are soon to become obsolete and will hold no future importance. She states that females “attend universities with the knowledge that the skills they acquire may only be used for a short time … roughly five years before settling down to have children.”

Although Naraghi appears to have come to UCSD simply to get an M.R.S. degree, I would argue that the vast majority of female students in higher education expect to make better use of a degree they are spending four-plus years and thousands of dollars earning. Naraghi’s article digresses from a piece about gender equality to her view of the necessity for women to embrace their proper role as housewives. Meanwhile, she paints a naive image of the struggles women face, threatening to set the gender back half a century.

­— Hadley Mendoza

John Muir College Freshman

O.A.S.I.S. Petition Needs Student Support

Dear Editor:

Last Thursday’s article on the A.S. Council meeting, which mentioned the speeches that Eddie Herrera and I gave in support of O.A.S.I.S., was incomplete and somewhat inaccurate.

I’ve been an orientation leader at Earl Warren College for the past two years, and dozens of my orientees use O.A.S.I.S. on a regular basis. Knowing that I’m active on campus and knowledgeable about how things work at UCSD, several students asked me if there was anything I could do to help out. After looking at last week’s A.S. Council agenda, on which there was legislation to increase fees for concerts and outreach, but not O.A.S.I.S., I wrote my own piece of legislation. It would’ve asked the entire campus if it was worth paying an extra $3.50 per quarter if it would restore O.A.S.I.S.’s funding. Eddie and I immediately started a petition drive to get the proposal on the ballot at UCSD.

Unfortunately, because of A.S. rules and university bureaucracy, we had less than one week to collect over 2,000 signatures, so we didn’t have time to get it done. Rather than giving up, we changed course. The O.A.S.I.S. petition drive will now become purely symbolic, as most petition drives are, and will comprise a statement of this campus’ collective unity in supporting O.A.S.I.S. When thousands of signatures are thrown in administrators’ faces, they’ll see how important the program is to the campus.

It’s too bad, though, that some members of the A.S. Council are trying to undermine this effort. After my speech at the A.S. meeting, Warren Sophomore Senator Daniel Palay began spreading lies around campus that I had claimed to have the Student Affirmative Action Committee’s endorsement of my petition drive.

This is false. I claimed no such thing. Since Eddie and I had drawn up the petition only the night before, we had not yet had time to announce it to any student organizations. Every A.S. meeting is recorded on audio tape, a fact of which Palay was apparently unaware when he lied to campus leaders. Reviewing the cassette proves that neither Eddie nor I mentioned SAAC or any other student organization. Although he originally said that it was my responsibility to correct his error, he has since changed his mind, and four days after the A.S. meeting he told me that he would set the record straight with the people he lied to.

It is disheartening that an elected member of A.S. would stoop to such levels to discredit a campaign to save such a valuable campus service. O.A.S.I.S. belongs to everyone, and the administration needs to see that it benefits everyone as well. Getting formal statements of support from thousands of students through a petition drive is one way to contribute to the cause. If students see the petition circulating, please sign it. The signatures will be delivered to the administration by the end of winter quarter. Will they make a difference? I can’t say for sure, but they certainly can’t hurt.

— Daniel Watts

Earl Warren College Senior