Dems' Nader Assertions Off

To the Editor:

The Oberlin Gore for President campaign is premised on admirable goals, surely, and the remarks of its coordinator, Dave Karpf, in last week's Review were respectful enough to supporters of Ralph Nader's presidential bid ‹ as he suggested, we have more common ground than difference. Nevertheless, I beg to differ with some of his assertions.

I will gloss over what seems like Mr. Karpf's greatest mistake ‹ that there is no great difference between Gore and Nader ‹ because I've been given to understand that he did not actually say such a silly thing, but was merely misquoted in the fine tradition of the Oberlin Review. This saves me a diatribe on Gore and Nader's differences on the death penalty, foreign policy, universal health care and, of course, economic policy and corporate power, not to mention Nader's obviously greater sincerity and credibility on issues like the environment, abortion and gay rights.

As to the misconceptions which were real, rather than accidental: a vote for Gore "works for real positive change," Karpf asserts. But what a vote for Gore will really work for is more of the same soft-pedaled conservatism we've gotten from Clinton: welfare slashing, murderous foreign policy, giveaways to big business, the abandonment of the labor movement, favoring industry over the environment, ad nauseum. Neither Gore himself, his platform nor his party represent any kind of significant political change; he is, in fact, one of the more conservative Democrats out there and always has been.

Finally, Karpf says that "Roe v. Wade is really only held up by one vote." While in one sense technically true, this statement is misleading. What really upholds the Roe decision is the overwhelming support of the American populace, and the fact that being involved in overturning it would be political suicide. A Bush or Gore presidency will more likely leave the decision in place, while it remains the American sentiment and activist energy to fend off restrictive legislation (which, by the way, Gore has voted for with great consistency in Congress).

Those who, though admiring Nader's positions and integrity, are voting for Gore see a big risk in building progressive energy and organization while allowing Bush to possibly be elected. But as the choice between two evils becomes worse with every election, they fail to notice the risk, equal if not greater, of allowing things to remain as they are.

---Nathan Tobin, College Sophomore

Nader Choice A Protest Vote

To the Editor:

At every college campus in America, a debate currently rages on about whether to vote for Vice President Al Gore, or Texas Governor George W. Bush. At Oberlin, of course, it's a bit different. Here, those who are supporting the Lone Star State's favorite Connecticut-born son are keeping pretty much to themselves. Here, the debate is between Al Gore and the Green Party Candidate, activist lawyer turned pseudo-politician Ralph Nader.

The debate has been anything but quiet. The Naderites, though well-organized, are a small minority here, and have been met with vitriolic opposition from the Gore supporters. "A vote for Nader is really just a vote for Bush!" I've been told by many a faithful Democrat. Most see him as an ego-mad millionaire, bent on wreaking havoc and mischief on the political system and making it difficult for Obies to accomplish what they see as their life's goal: defeating George Bush. But more importantly, people here seem to think that a vote for Nader is simply a wasted vote, a meaningless gesture.

Well, I'm not connected with the Socialist Alternative, the Green Party, or any other student organization endorsing Nader. I am definitely not supporting Bush. But here is why I am planning on voting for Nader, and why I think it can make a difference.

A vote for Nader is a vote of protest. I just can't bring myself to vote for either of the two main candidates. I can't stand the fact that both of them claim to be for campaign finance reform, while clearly neither of them are. In the last election cycle general public pessimism about our elected officials has been channeled into a lively, optimistic movement for reform of a system dominated by corporate donations and political action committees. That both candidates, but especially Al Gore, have tried to package this renewed idealism and cynically sell it back to us with phony populism and false promises is disheartening.

Al Gore wants us to believe that he is for campaign finance reform. Here is the man who pretty much started the campaign finance reform movement with his endless scandals as Vice President, and although he tells us that he has "learned from his mistakes,' he still won't own up to his role in these mishaps, using excuses that would seem ridiculous if uttered by a first-grader, ("Uh, I was going to the bathroom.") He has broken records this year for raising money, and now that campaign finance reform has become popular, he wants us to believe that he's for it? That's more insulting to my intelligence than any of Bush's goofs.

Would Ralph Nader make a good president? Of course not. He has the charm and charisma of a man who has just undergone 10 years of solitary confinement. He has no political experience, and has no chance of ever being President. So why vote for him? Because if enough people vote for him, maybe it will bring about a change in politics. Third party candidates have done much to change the course of political history, from slavery to prohibition to the New Deal, and there's no reason to believe that it can't happen again. If Gore loses the election because Nader "stole" his votes, perhaps after four dismal years of a Bush presidency, a candidate will emerge in 2004 who is a bit less centric and a bit more serious about reform. Whenever I complain to someone about Gore's truth-bending, condescending tactics, people say, "Well, they all do that," as if the system were set in stone and can't be changed. Well, I think it can change. There have been significant reforms in the past. Perhaps another is coming. Let's do what we can to speed it along.

---Alex Parker, College First-Year

Memories Change

To the Editor:

I like Al Gore, but I was upset when the story that his mother had sung a certain lullaby to him when he was little appeared to be a fabrication. Then my wife reminded me of an infancy tale I had written for my Memoirs: Starved Rock is a popular picnic spot near Rockford, Illinois, my home town, so named because a legendary band of Indians starved to death there during a siege. High as a small mountain, it affords a spectacular view, and on one side a sheer cliff, bordered by a rail fence, drops hundreds of feet.

At a family picnic shortly before my first birthday, my mother suddenly missed me, and to her horror she caught sight of me crawling under the rail fence. Hearing her cry, 12-year old cousin Ray raced to my rescue. I am 85 now, and I have especially enjoyed telling this story to my children and grandchildren, because it raises a profound question: "Suppose cousin Ray hadn't rescued me that day. Would that have made any difference to you?"

Now, that's the story I have told again and again. But when big sister Marge looked over the first draft of my Early Childhood recollections, she said, "Bud, this Starved Rock story, you didn't get all the details right." A 10-year old eye witness, she said, "It was a camping trip, not a picnic." Picky-picky! "And there wasn't any fence. I don't know where you got the idea there was a rail fence. And cousin Ray, cousin Ray wasn't even there that day. It was another boy who rescued the baby. And the baby, that wasn't you, it was Lolly!" ( Lolly is my little sister. )

My guess is that countless family "memories" that emerge from the fog of infancy are closer to fiction than fact, though they began with a kernel of truth. Like mine and Al Gore's. So, I still plan to vote for him.

---Quentin Ogren, California Resident

Oberlin Bikers Urged To Be Aware Of Pedestrians

My roommate and I have been at Oberlin a long time; some might say too long. Over the course of our illustrious college careers, there have been times that we've been angered by one thing or another to such an extent that one or both of us will exclaim, "Damn it, I'm going to write to the Review about this!" Despite how much we've meant it when we said it, neither of us has ever followed through.

This time is different. We have observed a great many students engaging in a behavior that is not only maddening but also dangerous: irresponsible cycling.

Neither my roommate nor I have a problem with cyclists in general. In fact, for a few years during high school, I was a fairly serious cyclist who rode around 20-40 miles a day. During that time, I established set of guidelines for myself that I felt helped me to be a responsible cyclist: 1) Cyclists should ride on the road, as they are using a wheeled vehicle. 2) Because cyclists ride on the road, they are subject to every one of the same traffic laws as cars. This includes stopping at red lights, signaling before making turns, and yielding to pedestrians. 3) Cyclists should always wear helmets. 4) When cyclists are riding in a place that requires them to be around other cyclists, or pedestrians (such as a bike path), they should always pass on the left and alert the passee that they are doing so. Acceptable ways of doing this are: ringing a bell, or preferably, saying "On your left!"

I admit that Oberlin is a special case. Although it bothered me quite a bit when I first arrived, I have accepted that the majority of students are not going to wear helmets. I have also come to accept the fact that cyclists at Oberlin will more frequently use the sidewalks than the roads when riding; in fact, I now consider the sidewalk as a kind of "bike path" where pedestrians and cyclists alike can travel without fear of being injured by motorists. However, this means that cyclists should ALWAYS alert others when they are passing, and whenever possible, should pass on the left. Several times in the last month, I have come very close to being injured by cyclists simply because I wasn't aware that they were coming up behind me.

Here's the thing: pedestrians can be unpredictable. I, especially, can be unpredictable. I can be walking along on the right side of the sidewalk in a perfectly straight line and suddenly swerve to the middle of the sidewalk to, say, pick up a quarter from the ground. If such a swerve should take place when a cyclist is two feet behind me, a collision may very well occur, injuring not only me but also the cyclist. As the semester goes on, pedestrians are only going to become more unpredictable and less aware of their surroundings due to sleep deprivation and preoccupation with that big neuroscience exam coming up.

I don't mean to put all of the responsibility on the cyclists. As responsible pedestrians, we should all look behind us before meandering about the sidewalk; I myself am making an effort to be more aware of my surroundings while walking. Likewise, pedestrians should follow the cardinal rule of most bike paths: users keep right. However, just as when driving, the majority of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the passer and not the passee. It's one thing to put yourself in danger; it's another thing entirely to be a menace to any person who just happens to be on the same sidewalk as you are.

I don't know why you haven't been alerting my roommate or me to your passing: maybe you just didn't see us, or perhaps you just didn't realize the possible consequences of passing without warning. Just in case it happens to be the former rather than the latter, we will both try to be responsible pedestrians, as well as make every attempt to wear very bright colors to alert you of our presence. Do your part, and alert us of yours.

---Alexis Olsho, College Junior

---Sarah Wyatt, College Senior

High Court Vote An Important One

To The Editor:

On November 7th, Ohio voters will be asked to elect a U.S. President and Vice President, a U.S. Senator, 19 U.S. Representatives, 16 State Senators, 99 State Representatives, two Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court, and hundreds of local officials. Everyone knows the importance of the presidential election, but for Ohio voters the Supreme Court elections are some of the most significant this fall.

A bipartisan majority of the Ohio Supreme Court has played an increasingly meaningful role in state politics in recent years issuing important rulings on tort reform, school funding, and other issues that directly benefit the people of Ohio. Justice Alice Resnick has often led this effort and authored both the tort reform and school funding majority opinions.

However, it is widely speculated that rather than moving on these rulings, the state is opting to hold off any substantive action until after the elections. The hope is that political and business interests will defeat Resnick and replace her with a more willing accomplice‹thereby "solving" the problems without changing anything other than the makeup of the Court.

Only a widespread grassroots effort can overcome this campaign to compromise the integrity of the Supreme Court. Powerful corporate and political interests are working against Justice Resnick, but ultimately votes decide elections. An informed vote for Resnick will protect Ohio's family and children.

Additionally, a vote for Judge Tim Black, running for the other open Supreme Court seat, will help ensure that the Court answers to the Ohio Constitution and people, not to private interests. Black is a respected Cincinnatti municipal court judge who is endorsed by various regional and statewide organizations.

Alice Resnick and Tim Black will protect the rights of this state's citizens and uphold the Ohio Constitution. Vote Resnick and Black on Nov 7th!

---Jeremy Neff, Bowling Green State University

Review Refuses to Refuse

To Our Readers:

In the last issue of the Review, published on Oct. 6, we printed a letter from Sexual Offense Policy Administrator Camille Hamlin Mitchell in which she questioned the accuracy of a letter printed in another campus publication, the Grape. The author of the original Grape article has criticized the Review in that publication and said that we should have refused to print the letter.

To do so would go against a core aspect of the Review's Perspectives section. As stated in our letter policy below, we do not refuse to print any letters received from members of the Oberlin community. Therefore, we did not have the place to refuse Hamlin-Mitchell's letter, as we feel it is her right to make the statements she feels as long as they fit our space requirements and do not constitute libel.

---Review Editorial Staff