USG bicycle loan program needs improvement
Regarding 'USG and public safety to loan bicycles' (Thursday, Feb. 22, 2007):
I would like to express my extreme disapproval of all aspects of the USG's new bicycle loan program. Coming from Manhattan, rife with constant bicycle accidents and high-volume traffic, and as a student who uses his bicycle daily, I think it is a very bad idea.
After having used my bike on campus for almost a year a now, I have observed that literally no one uses helmets, so bicycle accidents are prone to happen. By increasing bicycle traffic, a large portion of the Princeton student body would be sentenced to an almost certain serious accident before graduation. Though I have observed accidents here infrequently so far, I have had my fair share of close-calls, and the new program would be like playing pinball with 5,000 balls.
The more traffic a road has, the harder it is to get from point A to point B. While it is correct to say that bicycles currently decrease the travel time on campus, by increasing the traffic, the advantage of using a bicycle will become negligible. Princeton students will quickly become experts at riding bikes really slowly. I believe that because many bicycles would be identical, it would be difficult to locate one's bike.
Though I admire the thought of a bicycle loan program, the current proposal is inefficient and could be fatally dangerous. In order for it to work, there must be a way to ensure that fewer people will use it (perhaps by impsing rental costs) and that they will wear helmets. I think the best solution is the current one but with tighter restrictions on bicycle abandonment. Nathaniel Huebscher '10
Pro-life column is confusing
Regarding 'Absence of billboards in the womb' (Thursday, March 1, 2007):
I was left confused by David Schaengold's column. I'm not sure if it was the poor writing and improper sentence construction, the lack of coherent thought or some mixture of the two. I was struck by a number of contradictions in what I might generously call his Judeo-Christian Socialist program for endangering reproductive health.
For example: Does not a complete abstinence from choice cause serious problems for how we can choose to make our families? Or is the pro-life movement now claiming access to some transcendental moral imperative based entirely on restricting women from accessing sound healthcare advice, one that also includes a an unchanging model for how everyone has and always should live together?
Isn't the supposed sacredness of the individual, here the choice to speak freely (and otherwise the choice of when, where, how and with whom to have sex — and how to manage these choices, responsibilities and consequences) exactly the same choice Schaengold claims as a right when he utters his mindless verbal flatulence?
Is the womb really the one place left for a great socialist revolution? By Schaengold's logic, I wonder if the enslaved mothers who worked to enrich our young nation should have aborted their fetuses with wild abandon as a way to prevent their children's slavery and strike out at North America's slave population's pattern of growth through natural reproduction, rather than through the continual importation of new human chattel?
If the pro-abortion right is really out to establish a new regime of patriarchal power — without Lacoste and Polo, I really could care less — I would ask that they at least learn to write and argue with some finesse. Maybe then they would start to see the incredible danger of their anti-choice. Christopher Moses GS
Column typifies unfounded Street stereotypes
Regarding 'The daily ritual: a walk down the Street' (Friday, March 2, 2007):
Neel Gehani's column started out great — a nice rumination on the daily ritual of traversing the Street. Too bad, then, that it quickly degraded into a useless collection of tired Street stereotypes. Nothing says "I have no good ideas left" like talking about nerdy Charter members and anorexic Cottage girls. The author should also be applauded for turning a courteous sidewalk sidestep into a marker of inferiority — as a Quad member myself, I had no idea I was actually making way for more important people! At least now I know, right? So, Gehani: The next time we meet on one of Prospect's sidewalks, please don't be affronted if I check you to the ground like a grizzled hockey forward. It's about respect, you see. Will Poor '07
Alito article shows too many biases
Regarding 'One year in, Alito 'his own man'' (Friday, March 2, 2007):
With statements like "In the first 13 months of Alito's service on the Court ... his votes and legal opinions have shown him to be an independent thinker," the article reveals its bias easily. As we read further, we find that it only quotes supporters and friends of Alito, while there are certainly many critics she could have cited.
Is The Daily Princetonian a mouthpiece for the University, serving to sugarcoat the career of a famous Princeton graduate who touted his participation in a bigoted student group in order to get a job under Reagan? Or is it attempting to pass off personal biases as honest reporting?
Dear 'Prince' editors, save this for the Opinion page, please. Or educate your reporters to quote diverse sources. Sara Viola '08
Professor is incorrect about release of presidential records
Regarding 'Sealed archives may be released' (Monday, March 5, 2007):
Nolan McCarty is incorrect in his statement that the effect of President Bush's executive order on the release of presidential records has been minimal. In fact, as my testimony (nsarchive.org) to the House of Representatives' hearing showed, the government has added five years of delay to such releases in the six years since the Bush White House intervened in the process back in 2001. McCarty also is incorrect in his assertion that advice to the President must be kept confidential. In fact, the law that governs such records explicitly removes that confidentiality 12 years after the President leaves office. Thomas Blanton Director, National Security Archive George Washington University
Letters show insecurity, not truth
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, March 6, 2007):
The recent tantrum of letters thrown by Michael Fragoso '06, Kevin Joyce '09 and Sean McGowan '06 speaks volumes more to the insecurity of the letter-writers than it does to the alleged immaturity of Professor Silver. Harold Parker '08
A challenge for a duel
Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, March 6, 2007):
What vile calumny is this! Sean McGowan means to impugn the name of Messr. Silver as "a gentleman." Sir, there is no higher insult. To inveigh against a man's very HONOR is to call into account his existence as a man. Attacks on honor demand satisfaction. Therefore, I hereby on the pages of this daily newspaper do challenge Messr. McGowan to defend his honor, in the time-honored tradition of a duel. (In lieu of a slap, a facebook.com poke shall suffice.) As per the Code Duello of 1777, the challenged shall have choice of weapons, and I the grounds. My personal preference stands for the south lawn of Frist, pistols at dawn. The Hon. Adam Flynn '08 shall act as my second, and arrangements can be made through the same. I await a reply, and remain Yr. Obt. Srvt. Ambrose B. Scoffpossum, Esq. Class of 1856 Courtesy of Adam Flynn '08
Katrina policy must be at the forefront of Princetonians' minds
The many Americans struggling to rebuild their lives and their homes after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita need to know that Congress has not forgotten them. Hope was provided when three members of the Senate Homeland Security Committee flew to New Orleans in January to refocus attention on the progress — or lack thereof — of rebuilding efforts.
The crafting of sensible policies requires the correction of three common misperceptions.
First, the aftermath of Katrina is not merely a local crisis; it is national problem. The importance of the Mississippi River is difficult to exaggerate. The river is our only natural national transportation system for the movement of exports and imports.
Second, Katrina was not a "natural disaster"; it was a human-made disaster triggered by natural events. There has been little focus on what could have prevented it from happening. The flooding, caused by the breaching of the levees, was the direct result of human mistakes and neglect.
Third, the federal government was responsible for the causes of the human-made catastrophe — not the people of New Orleans. Over decades, our government made decisions that eliminated the wetlands as the natural buffer against storms and allowed the water surge to devastate the region; it enacted mistaken policies for the use and protection of the entire river; it constructed levees which were known to be inadequate; and it failed to develop policies of environmental justice for poor and minority populations.
What is needed is not merely assistance, but rather accountability. We urge that the new Congress make Katrina — and the prevention of another Katrina — a priority. I urge Princeton students to keep this issue on their minds. Victoria Taylor '03
Read More
$56,000 in debt at graduation is not the financial aid Princeton advertises
Avi CheslerTake my story as an example — despite repeated evidence, both before and after taking out loans, that I would be unable to pay what Princeton asked of me — the University never set a cost that I could truly meet loan-free.
In the Garden State’s service and the service of humanity
Olivia Ragan, Lauren Aung, and Madison LintonIt is important to cultivate in students interest in local and state level change, because it is the most direct way to give back to the New Jersey community that sustains the University.
Why do two-thirds of your summer research wages go to Princeton, anyway?
Isaac BarsoumThe income that students earn from employment is not “miscellaneous.” So Princeton must decide: Does it want its students — all of them, not only those who can afford it — to be able to work on the important research happening at Princeton, or be forced to go home?
The income that students earn from employment is not “miscellaneous.” So Princeton must decide: Does it want its students — all of them, not only those who can afford it — to be able to work on the important research happening at Princeton, or be forced to go home?