By ZOE RICHARDS
STAFF WRITER
Tuesday’s ASSU Senate meet-ing was packed with new faces asthe 11th Undergraduate Senatebegins to make its transition intostudent government and the veter-ans of the 10th Senate make theirexit.With its term winding down,thecurrent Senate discussed budgetitems for next year,including theAssociation Budget,and debatedwhether senators ought to be ableto serve on the NominationsCommission (NomCom).The Association Budget,whichis facing an approximately 11 per-cent cut,drew quite a bit of atten-tion from the Senate.Typicallyconsisting of $229,000,the budgetis mostly designated for opera-tional costs,with some set aside forthe political bodies themselves.The Association Budget will bevoted on after the ASSU’s politicalbodies provide feedback toFinancial Manager MattMcLaughlin ‘08.Speaking at lastnight’s meeting,McLaughlin notedthat after a year of involvement inan elected capacity,Senate mem-bers should be qualified and ableto make clear decisions aboutimportant budget items.“I don’t view it as my role todetermine what should andshouldn’t be on [next year’s budg-et],”McLaughlin said.“It should-n’t be me determining an issuewhen I’m not an elected official.”McLaughlin urged senators tomake detailed recommendationsabout where they envision feasiblecuts as the preliminary adjust-ments he made reflect what hecalled “bureaucratic”judgments,rather than informed choices“based on policy.”“I don’t want to be the ping-pong between different organiza-tions,”McLaughlin said.Deputy Chair Patrick Cordova‘09 responded to McLaughlin’srequests by suggesting that indi-vidual senators who do haveobjections to the proposed budgetcommunicate them directly withMcLaughlin before the Senatevotes.In a contentious debate,sena-tors proceeded to discuss whoshould be allowed to sit on theNomCom and participate in com-mittees.The Commission,whichwill be chaired by Phillip Hon ‘10in the upcoming year,consists of seven graduate and undergraduatestudents.The Commission aims toensure that student voices arepresent and heard in Universitydecision-making by nominatingstudents to University and Boardof Trustees committees.Cordova was opposed to theidea of senators participating onNomCom,arguing that senatorsalready have a significant platformto express their opinions.“I would like to give other stu-dents the opportunity to stand onthe soapbox,”Cordova said.“Myvoice may already drown out [thevoices of other students].”Senator Stephanie Epps ‘10 dis-agreed with Cordova,pressing theimportance of letting those whoare committed to serving theStanford community to do so inNomCom as well.“I stood on four committees—I have a vested interest in the stu-dent body,”Epps said.Senator-elect Varun Sivaram‘11 agreed with Epps and cau-tioned against “depriving Stanfordof its senators,”who are,in hisview,committed to serving the
By DANA SHERNE
Overall turnout in last week’s ASSU elec-tions dropped 6.67 percent from 2008,butundergraduate voting went up 14.62 percent—the largest increase since the 2005 election—indicating rapidly growing undergraduateinterest in Stanford student government.Just last year,in the 2008 election,under-graduate turnout fell 7.4 percent,but thisyear’s results indicate another turnaround forthe ASSU.The undergraduate vote went up10.07 percent in 2007,following a 7.55 percentdecrease in 2006.According to Cady Glaser ‘10,the diversi-ty of candidates this election year contributedto the 14.62 percent increase in voter turnout.“The people running for ASSU,mainly theExecs,were people that came from very dif-ferent groups...and they were attracting awider range of people than before,”she said.ASSU Executives-elect David Gobaud ‘08M.S.‘10 and Jay de la Torre ‘10 are the firstgraduate-undergraduate team to win electionto the ASSU’s highest office in recent memory.Other students attributed the increase inASSU interest to the leadership of currentASSU Executives Jonny Dorsey ‘09 andFagan Harris ‘09.“I think [Dorsey and Harris have] takenon not only a stronger stance but a broaderstance in terms of looking at many differentissues at hand:mental health,and wellness,sexual violence,environmental matters andfinancial issues,”said Yihana Ritter ‘11.Under Dorsey and Harris,the ASSU hasexpanded its reach into advocacy issues thatstudent government has not traditionallytouched.“I think the ASSU is wonderful at plan-ning social events,community bondingevents,and works to improve the generalwell-being of the students at Stanford—forexample,with the Wellness Room thatopened this past quarter,”said SiddharthaOza,‘11.Oza acknowledged,however,that the elec-tion process is still imperfect.“To a degree,it’s a certain amount of apopularity contest,”he said.More than half of the undergraduate pop-ulation—56.3 percent—chose to vote,butmany students still question the effectivenessof the ASSU.“Many of the issues [the candidates] cam-paigned on,I know the Senate doesn’t reallyhave any control over,”said Bill Rowan ‘11.Austin Keeley ‘11 chose not to votebecause of similar doubts about ASSU effica-cy,as well as his negative perception of candi-dates’ motivations for running.“I got the vibe from some of the candi-
PALO ALTO
ShoppingCenter planwithdrawn
SCIENCE & TECH
Researchersfind sourceofarsenic
By JULIA BROWNELL
DESK EDITOR
Faculty and students from theEnvironmental Earth SystemsSciences (EESS) program havefound the source of arsenic that hasbeen poisoning groundwater inSouth Asian river deltas.The project,conducted south of the Cambodian capital,PhnomPenh,was orchestrated by EESSProf.Scott Fendorf and his team of graduate students,in conjunctionwith Research DevelopmentInternational (RDI) Cambodia.The health effects of ingestingarsenic range from mild callusingand darkening of the skin to lesionson the skin and lungs,leading tomelanoma and lung cancer.The humanitarian aspect of thisresearch on arsenic is very impor-tant to Fendorf and his team;Fendorf said that he believes thatthe humanitarian spirit permeatesthe EESS department.“Definitely,EESS research has ahuman element to it...It was oneof the founding ideas,”he said.“Once you see the gravity of the sit-uation in South Asia in my case...you start migrating to those types of
By THE DAILY NEWS STAFF
The University announced yes-terday that it is withdrawing its pro-posal to the City of Palo Alto toexpand the Stanford ShoppingCenter.Simon Properties,the leaseholderon the Stanford land,proposedadding 240,000 square feet and a120-room hotel to the ShoppingCenter grounds.Palo Alto officials “expressed dis-appointment with the University’sdecision,”as stated in a press releaseby the city.Stanford ShoppingCenter currently contributes a signif-icant percentage of the city’s salestax revenues.Expanding the centerwould increase that contribution andcreate jobs for Palo Alto residents.University officials cited a desireto shift focus onto the expansion of Stanford Hospital and the LucillePackard Children’s Hospital intoPalo Alto land.The hospital expan-sion was filed jointly with theStanford Shopping Center develop-ment in 2007.The hospital plans are bound by a2013 seismic retrofitting deadlineimposed by state law.The project iscurrently behind schedule,and theUniversity hopes to extend thatdeadline until 2015.The two expansion plans were
University opts to focus on hospital growth Stanford scientists aidCambodian residents New senators arrive, NomCom debated
Index
Features/2 • Opinions/3 • Sports/4 •Classifieds/5
Recycle Me
Undergrad voter total up 14.62%
ASSU election undergraduate vote increases dramatically; ASSU activism, current Execs cited as factors
STUDENT GOV’T
Senate takes look atAssociation budget
SPEAKERS & EVENTS
Earth Day founder Denis Hayes speaks at kickoffevent
By ELLEN DANFORD
Students for a Sustainable Stanford’s EarthWeek kicked off yesterday with a speech fromEarth Day founder and former ASSU PresidentDenis Hayes ‘69.After sharing anecdotes abouthis student activist days,Hayes encouraged theaudience gathered on Meyer Lawn to create a“Green Generation,”the theme of Earth Day2009.“The level of passion and integrity is greatlychanged since my undergraduate years,”Hayessaid.“Now it is subterranean and frankly morepositive,with a real sense of pursuit of opportu-nities.”Hayes hoped that his speech would help “acouple of people find what they will do in theirlives,”as his remarks were woven around “mov-ing into a bold new era”with the Obama admin-istration’s new focus on improving environmen-tal conservation standards.He envisions that thisnew movement will reach the Stanford campusas well,and said it is outrageous that theUniversity is not completely energy-efficient,telling students that if they demand energy effi-ciency,it will be achieved.As an example,Hayes described his activismas ASSU president.In 1968,the StanfordApplied Electronics Building housed researchfor the creation of an anti-ballistic missile.Hayescalled a meeting to vote whether or not a univer-sity campus should house classified research.Stanford cancelled the research after 95 percentof the community voted against it.
Today
Sun, Wind & Cool
5440
Tomorrow
Sunny
6348
SPORTS/4
ROAD WARRIORS
Men’s tennis earns Pac-10 victories inOregon and Washington
The Stanford Daily
An Independent Publication
SPORTS/4
CARD SPLASHES CAL
Women’s water polo team beats rivals, 9-8,heads for MPSF showdown with USC
www.stanforddaily.com
WEDNESDAY Volume 235
April 15, 2009Issue 37
WINDS AND WRECKAGE
AGUSTIN RAMIREZ/The Stanford Daily
A tree was toppled by the strong winds yesterday near Columbae on the Row. Fortunately, the fall did not damagethe house. According to Weather.com, wind speeds on campus yesterday went up to 32 miles per hour.
Please see
EARTH DAY
,page 6Please see
SENATE
,page 2Please see
VOTERS
,page 6Please see
ARSENIC
,page 2Please see
EXPANSION
,page 6
2
N
Wednesday,April 15,2009
The Stanford Daily
F
EATURES
E
HRLICH REVISITS
“P
OPULATION
B
OMB
”
I
N
1968,P
AUL
E
HRLICHPREDICTEDTHATTHEWORLDWASONTHEBRINKOFMASSSTARVATION
.M
ORETHAN
40
YEARSLATER
,
HESTILLTHINKSWE
’
REINDANGER
.
By LILY GUO
I
n 1968,Professor Paul R.Ehrlich,Bing professor of pop-ulation studies,published “ThePopulation Bomb”,a book thatmade his name known to any-one vaguely familiar with economictheory.His doomsday predictionswere revolutionary.“The battle to feed all of humani-ty is over,”he claimed.“In the 1970sand 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked uponnow.”Since “The Population Bomb”was published more than 40 yearsago,no famines of the magnitudethat Ehrlich spoke of have occurred,causing many to dismiss his theory—that rapid population growth is acrisis that demands our immediateattention.While smaller famineshave devastated many regions of theworld,critics have nevertheless dis-credited him.In the face of such abacklash,the aging Ehrlich laughing-ly contends that he’s “still the oldcrazy man that thinks overpopula-tion is a huge problem in the world.”Ehrlich’s office does not seem tohave walls.On one side there is awindow,while all other sides of theroom are completely covered withbooks,many of which he wrote.During his interview with The Daily,he offhandedly mentioned that hehas already given away 9,000 books,and that those in the office wouldhave to go soon,too.Lately,bookshave not been the only things to go—Ehrlich has had to backtrack onhis radical population bomb theory.In a recent article written byEhrlich and his wife Jane,“Population Bomb Revisited,”theyacknowledge there were a fewsevere flaws in the assumptions thatwere made more than 40 years ago.The famines Ehrlich predictedwere somewhat prevented by theGreen Revolution,a technologicaladvancement in agriculture from the‘60s through the ‘80s that doubledthe staple food supply.There arethose who claim that,due to theGreen Revolution,there is no longera hunger problem related to over-population.Ehrlich,however,point-ed out that today there are over abillion undernourished people whoare extremely vulnerable to a multi-tude of diseases,a number that isoften overlooked.Since publishing “The PopulationBomb”,Ehrlich’s views have becomemuch less extreme,though he retainshis belief that population growth is asevere—albeit not the most press-ing—problem of our time.“The biggest problem we havetoday is over-consumption.If eachone of us used only what we neededand consumed sensibly,we wouldn’thave to face the environmentalproblem we have,”he said.“Reducing per-capita consumptionis a much easier task than reducingthe population.”Still,an escalating population—the UN projects a 32 percent growthin population by 2050-still concernsEhrlich.“When I was born,there wereabout two billion people on the plan-et;now there are more than 6.7 bil-lion,”he said.“This kind of changeand its effect cannot be ignored.”“Of course,reducing the popula-tion is still something that should bedone,”he added.“Only then can wehave a stable society,”suggestingthat the best way to achieve this inregions of rapid population growth,such as India—which is projectedto have a population greater thanthat of China by 2040—is throughthe education of women.When hespoke to educated women in China,he discovered that they are wildly infavor of the one-child policy.Ehrlich,himself the father of onlyone child,does not necessarily agreewith the one-child policy.Hebelieves the right course of action inChina should have been approach-ing the problem earlier in order toimplement a less drastic approach.“At the time the policy waspassed,however,with the situationin China at the time,it was a sensiblemeasure,”he said.While there are many who associ-ate over-population problems withAsia or Africa,Ehrlich believes it tobe a problem in the U.S.as well.In“Population Bomb Revisited,”hedescribed this country as “a center of over-consumption whose populationcontinues growing because of a rela-tively high birthrate and high immi-gration rate.”To combat this problem inAmerica,Ehrlich isn’t opposed togovernment intervention.“Have you ever heard this issuementioned in the media?”he asked.“You’ve got to get a President who’sgot the guts to say,‘PatrioticAmericans stop at two [children].’ Itneeds to be brought up,then eventu-ally people will recognize its dangerand do something about it.”In “The Population Bomb,”Ehrlich predicted many devastatingeffects of population growth.Technology helped us sidestep a fewof his predictions,and for this,manyhave discredited the bulk of hiswork.But his controversial book wasone that went beyond its time—despite taking an extreme stance,Ehrlich was among the first to recog-nize the dangers of over-population.He predicted “the deterioration of the epidemiological environmentand the possibility of a ‘super flu’”long before climate change andAIDS became serious worries.And now,he could be right again.
Contact Lily Guo at lilyguo@stan- ford.edu.
issues.”Due to intense civil war inCambodia over the past 30 years,the citizens have only started to digwells to the aquifer for drinkingwater over the past decade.Therefore,they have fewer symp-toms of poisoning because of theirlimited exposure.“It takes often two decadesbefore effects start manifestingthemselves,”Fendorf said.Most health effects are more vis-ible in the Ganges-Brahmaputrariver delta in India and Bangladesh,where thousands die of cancersrelated to the toxin.“It’s really,really bad,”Fendorf said.“Bangladesh and parts of Indiaare really getting hit hard with thehealth effects now,and Cambodia ison its way.”To get to the bottom of the mys-tery,the team dug wells in a sectionof the Mekong delta to study thedistribution of the dissolved arsenic.“We were able to figure out howthe water flows,and follow thechemistry of [the arsenic] as itmoves down,”Fendorf said.The wells allowed the team tostudy the exchange of waterbetween the river and the wetlandssurrounding it.The wetlands areflooded by the Mekong River eachyear,which deposits sediment con-taining insoluble arsenic from theHimalayas.Once deposited,thearsenic is used as fuel by anaerobicbacteria,which turn it into a solubleform that flows with water from thewetlands down into the citizens’drinking water.The aquifer thenfeeds back into the river.“We think it’s about a 300-yeartravel time [in the strongest spots],”Fendorf said.“It’s a steady state;you have arsenic in the sedimentand arsenic in the water.It’s beenhappening for thousands of years,and it’ll just keep doing that.”Fendorf stressed that the projectwas not one without hope of solu-tion.He recently returned from aconference in Cambodia about howto proceed using the new findings.The conference stressed how scien-tists can help inform policy-makersand the public.In addition,Fendorf mentionedspecific measures being consideredto remedy the problem for the citi-zens of the delta who have no othersource of water and are running outof time against the health risks.“You can filter the water,”hesaid,“but you have a number of riskfactors—how do you prevent filterfailure and how do you work if a fil-ter does fail?”Due to limited options of otherwater sources,Fendorf said anotheroption may have to be “rainwaterharvesting.”Cambodia’s civil war includedgenocide against citizens outside thegovernment who were educated orheld positions of power.Fendorf stressed that RDI Cambodia madesure the project worked coopera-tively with the community inPhnom Penh to help educate themand provide work opportunities.“That was RDI’s mantra—immerse themselves in the localcommunity and not just bring inWesterners to do the work,”Fendorf said.“Helping to bringback an educated class is reallyimportant.”Though on the right track,Fendorf qualified that this researchis by no means an end or solution tothe puzzle.“It was an important step...[the research] is having and willcontinue to have a positive socialinfluence,”he said.But,“We’reactually still working over there...It’s an ongoing process.”
Contact Julia Brownell at juliabr@ stanford.edu
ARSENIC
Continued from front page
public good.After consulting the SenateBylaws,Senator Luukas Ilves ‘09,chair of the Administration &Rules committee,concluded thatSenate rules render neither posi-tion correct on the issue.Instead,the Senate’s NomCom involve-ment will be decided by theCommission.“It’s up to [NomCom’s] discre-tion to decide whether being a sen-ator aids or detracts from our abili-ty to do this job,”Ilves said.
Contact Zoe Richard at iamzoe@ stanford.edu.
SENATE
Continued from front page
L
ike everyone else at Stanford,I’m usu-ally in denial about how stressed out Iam.Upon discovering that my lastquarter here was to be my busiest to date,Istarted worrying about being too stressed toenjoy it.During yet another sleepless night lastweek,I recalled an episode of “Monk”wherethe main character gets hypnotherapy inorder to combat his obsessive-compulsivedisorder and regresses into a blissful,angst-free five-year-old.It seemed like a goodtradeoff to me.A Google search and a phone call later,Iwas sitting in a classroom of the Palo AltoSchool of Hypnotherapy.Established in 1977,the school offers certificates and Master’sprograms,and looks more like a tastefullydecorated business office than anything else.The 12 students I met were ethnically di-verse professionals in their thirties and for-ties.Some had backgrounds in psychologywhile others were former hypnotherapy pa-tients.They were all amicable,and had ex-tremely soothing voices.It’s tempting to dismiss hypnotherapy asthe medical equivalent of tarot card readingand Yahoo horoscopes,especially since—asa student pointed out—there are plenty of programs that will give you a hypnotherapycertificate after a single class.Unlike tarot card reading,however,hyp-notherapy is practiced at some full- fledgedmedical institutions,including the Center forIntegrative Medicine at Stanford Hospital.According to the program’s Web site,hyp-notherapy helps patients cope with a varietyof maladies,both physiological and psycho-logical,including controlling physical pain,quitting smoking,overcoming phobias andmanaging stress.Pat Sullivan,who instructed the PASOHclass I attended,identified all these benefitsas well,adding that the practice can sharpenmemory and increase concentration.When I finally got the nerve to ask whatbeing hypnotized feels like,the class offeredto let me see for myself.This was what I had been hoping for,butimmediately after consenting,I panicked.Byagreeing to get your hair cut at beauty school,you risk getting stuck with ugly bangs.By vol-unteering to get hypnotized at hypnotherapyschool,I worried that I was risking gettingstuck with irreparable psychological damage.(I later read on the Stanford Web site thatthis isn’t possible.)Though I never questioned the profes-sionalism and competence of Pat and her stu-dents,I was concerned about the prospect of emerging from a trance with no recollectionof the past hour.After being assured that I’dremember everything,I felt better.Before beginning the hypnosis,the stu-dents asked me to talk about my anxiety—what it felt like psychologically and physical-ly,triggers that made it worse,etc.Whilethese questions allowed them to better un-derstand my challenges and goals,they alsohelped build rapport between us.After all,if there’s one thing I enjoy,it’s being asked totalk about myself.While most of the questions I fieldedwould have been asked by any counselor orphysician,every now and then,a more unusu-al one was posed:“What color do you associ-ate with stress?”After I described a place that made mefeel safe and happy,we were ready to begin.I was surprised to learn that in order to hyp-notize a patient,the hypnotist must hypnotizehim or herself.too.In my case,I was hypno-tized by—and with—the entire class at once.To be honest,I still don’t understand howhypnotherapy actually works.According tothe literature Pat gave me,it is “the achieve-ment of deep relaxation through the alter-ation of brain wave patterns.”All anyone technically did,however,wasguided meditation.I sat in a chair while thestudents took turns talking—no one swunga watch in front of my face or massaged mytemples.First,Pat described relaxation pulsingthrough my body.Then the students tookturns describing my place of “comfort andsafety.”Then we descended 10 imaginarystairs,and that’s when things got crazy.People experience hypnotism differently.For me,it was intensely physical.I felt mybody swelling up and then dissolving,so thateven though I knew my hands were restingon my thighs,I couldn’t feel them.I became alittle ball of energy,receiving pulses from theair around me.(Yes,I know how this sounds.It was awesome.)At this point,the students recited back tome the goals I had stated earlier—centered-ness,the ability to appreciate the present,faith in myself—while affirming that I wasnow in a place where I could achieve them.Then we went back up the stairs,and I’vefelt fantastic ever since.I’m not arguing that hypnotherapy is aquick fix for all of life’s problems.A lot of thereason I’ve been stressed,for instance,is be-cause I’m overcommitted,and no amount of hypnotism is going to change that.But it hashelped reorient my thinking in positive ways.I now feel that I can accomplish everythingI’ve set out to do,and that I can take everymoment as it comes.At this point,cynics,i.e.everyone whosmirked at the phrase “little ball of energy,”will say that hypnotherapy only worked forme because I believed it would.Yes,obvious-ly.You can’t get hypnotized if you won’t letyourself.Still unconvinced? That’s okay.No one’sforcing you to be happy.
Jenna would like to thank Pat Suillvan and the students at the Palo Alto School of Hypnother-apy for a great start to her week.For more in- formation on PASOH,visit pasoh.com.Youcan email Jenna at jreback@stanford.edu.
The Stanford Daily
Wednesday,April 15,2009
N
3
O
PINIONS
T
his past week,President Obama’s ad-ministration signaled that it will pushfor immigration reform this year,set-ting the stage for a polarizing fight in Con-gress.This new legislation will arrive amidthousands of migrant deaths in U.S.desertborder regions;community raids that haveresulted in the splitting of hundreds of thou-sands of families;an extremely costly borderwall that separates communities,while failingto deter border crossings;and a large sect of Americans who strongly oppose any kind of realistic reform legislation.In light of all the legislation Obama wish-es to push forth this year related to the econ-omy,healthcare and energy,placing the divi-sive issue of immigration reform on the im-mediate agenda marks an example of politi-cal courage that should inspire our Universi-ty administration to rethink and reform itsown policies toward immigrants who cometo the Farm from outside of U.S.borders.Stanford’s most glaring failure withwould-be immigrant students is its lack of need-blind admission for international appli-cants.There are 6,502 undergraduates atStanford,including 452 international studentswho make up about seven percent of the un-dergraduate population.The argument forneed-blind admission and a full financial aidprogram for U.S.-born students centers onmaking sure that severe financial hardshipdoes not keep qualified students from apply-ing to Stanford.We offer one of the best edu-cations in the world,and we offer it,in princi-ple,to everyone able to get in.International students fortunate enoughto get in are guaranteed full financial aid,butthose applying weigh their decisions of whether to apply for financial aid knowingthat their chances of admission will be signif-icantly injured if they request University re-sources to make their education more afford-able.This is an unacceptable policy.While weare expanding gateways for our students toengage with the rest of the world throughwonderful international study and serviceopportunities,the University has a moral re-sponsibility to expand gateways for the bestand the brightest around the world to cometo us.Many international students come onscholarships that will only fund three years,making opportunities such as studyingabroad and having fewer than 20 units perquarter impossible.These are not issues to beaddressed only when stocks are soaring andthe endowment is growing.Emphasizing thepossibility of a Stanford education to all theworld’s citizens should be at the core of theUniversity mission and no less importantwhen the endowment is $12 billion thanwhen it is $17 billion.Beyond its lack of need-blind admission,the University’s resources to aid internation-al students in filling out government formsand negotiating visa problems are severelydeficient.Many international students seekaid from the Bechtel International Center inorder to get Social Security numbers,receivebanking services,file U.S.tax forms and dealwith visa problems in returning to the U.S.But the Center often sends these studentsback to its convoluted Web site,saying theyare not equipped to offer advice and do notwant to be liable for the risks involved in of-fering these services.The difficulties international applicantsand students face at Stanford largely arise outof their fundamental circumstances:they areguests in this country,subject to many restric-tions that Stanford has no control over,andhave little recourse or method to appealagainst said restrictions.They are the leastpowerful,and thus should be the most rigor-ously defended.Yet without much interna-tional student lobbying power,or many alum-ni pressuring for change,the University haslittle incentive to improve its policies for in-ternational applicants and students beyond agenuine concern for the difficulties they face.This incentive has proven insufficient to theUniversity thus far,but it is high time for Stan-ford to realize that its responsibility to stu-dents coming from outside U.S.borders is allthe more pressing because they have less re-course and fewer alumni fighting in their de-fense.This is why little gets done to help them.This is why they should be a top priority.
Univ.needs to be open to allimmigrant students
EDITORIAL
Unsigned editorials in the space above represent the views of The Stanford Daily's editorial board and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Daily staff.The editorial board is comprised of two former Daily staffers,three at-large student members and the two editorial board co-chairs.Any signed columns and contributionsare the views of their respective writers and do not necessarily represent the views of the entire editorial board.To contact the editorial board for an issue to be considered,or to submit an op-ed,please email editorial@daily.stanford.edu.
Managing Editors
The Stanford Daily
Established 1892
A N I N D E P E N D E N T N E W S PA P E R
Incorporated 1973
Tonight’s Desk Editors
Julia Brownell
News Editor
Sam Svoboda
Sports Editor
Amy Harris
Features Editor
Chris Seewald
Photo Editor
Ben Cohen
Copy Editor
Cris Bautista
Graphics Editor
Devin Banerjee
Deputy Editor
Nikhil Joshi
Managing Editor of News
Wyndam Makowsky
Managing Editor of Sports
Emma Trotter
Managing Editor of Features
Agustin Ramirez
Managing Editor of Photo
Joanna Xu
Managing Editor of Intermission
Stuart Baimel
Columns Editor
Tim Hyde,Andrew Valencia
Editorial Board Chairs
Cris Bautista
Head Graphics Editor
Samantha Lasarow
Head Copy Editor
Board of Directors
Christian Torres
President,Editor in Chief
In HoLee
Chief Operating Officer
Someary Chhim
Vice President of Advertising
Devin BanerjeeKamil DadaMichael LondgrenTheodore GlasserRobert MichitarianGlenn Frankel
Contacting The Daily
:Section editors can be reached at (650) 723-2555 from 3 to 10 p.m.The Advertising Department can be reached at (650) 721-5803,and theClassified Advertising Department can be reached at (650) 721-5801 during normal business hours.
T
en years ago,I was living in New Yorkwhen the Columbine massacre of April 20,1999 brutally disrupted theeuphoria of the prosperous,peaceful dot-com days.But Columbine was only the cap-stone of a long run of school massacres bystudents.May 1998:Four shot in Springfield,Ore-gon,killed by a 15-year-old who had also shothis parents to death.March 1998:An 11-yearold and a 13-year-old pull a fire alarm at theirschool in Jonesboro,Arkansas,killing five aspeople flee the building.December,1997:A14-year-old freshman killed three at a highschool prayer circle in Kentucky.And therewere many others.The string of incidents,each shockinglyoutrageous in its own right,was so relentlessthat I had actually gotten used to it.I filed re-ports of yet another school shooting in mybrain somewhere near the weather report.Columbine was bad enough that it shockedme out of my complacency.I knew that thishorrific violence had many complicated so-cial causes,but all the incidents revolvedaround one central element:guns.Determined to do something,I quickly joined a group called New Yorkers AgainstGun Violence.I helped with fundraisers andwent to Albany to lobby for the passage of aspecific gun-safety bill,called Child AccessPrevention (CAP) that would have requiredthat guns stored at home be locked withchild-proof locks.It seemed a no-brainer—after all,studies had shown that accidentalgun deaths of children in states with suchlaws were reduced 23 percent.Yet I was stunned by the resistance we en-countered in Albany.The New York Statelegislature was actually in the midst of con-ferencing on a school violence bill that wasintended to help schools deal appropriatelywith troubled students.Since many of the re-cent school shootings had been committedwith guns taken from homes or neighbors’homes,it seemed a double no-brainer to in-clude the safety-lock legislation in the schoolviolence bill.Yet the Republican leadership of the NewYork State Senate violently opposed theCAP measure,having killed it every year forthe previous six years.This was my first en-counter with the power of the pro-gun lobbyand the juggernaut of the National Rifle As-sociation (NRA).To this day,New York Statestill does not have CAP legislation in place.This experience was brought back to meby a sobering piece on CBS’s “Sixty Min-utes”last Sunday on the state of gun controlin this country.Lesley Stahl reported thatgun sales have gone through the roof latelybecause of apocalyptic fear over the econo-my and tinfoil-hat paranoia about the newadministration.But mostly,I was remindedof how incredibly strong the gun lobby is inthis country.In fact,the NRA may be the single mostpowerful lobby in the U.S.(It was ranked as just that back in 1999 by Fortune magazine,and although I couldn’t find a more recentranking,it’s likely still way up there).For ex-ample,after Congress passed the AssaultWeapons Ban in 1994,Republicans tookover both houses,and the NRA’s lobbying ef-forts were given much of the credit for thevictory.The Republicans then allowed theban to expire in 2004.Now,Senator DianeFeinstein,who sponsored the original legisla-tion,wants to reinstate it,but,as she toldStahl,“The National Rifle Association essen-tially has a stranglehold on the Congress.”And not just on Congress.The influenceof the NRA and the pro-gun lobby in gener-al has essentially won the battle for publicopinion.Gallup polls show that in 2000,60percent of Americans favored stricter guncontrol laws.That number is now down to 49percent.For another sad and shocking exam-ple,consider what happened in Virginia inthe wake of the unbelievable massacre at Vir-ginia Tech,in which a deranged student killed32 students and teachers.The Virginia State legislature attemptedto close Virginia’s so-called gun show loop-hole,which allows any private individual tosell guns to anyone else without a back-ground check.Something like 30 states havesuch loopholes,and criminals will visit thosestates,buy guns and transport them to stateswith tighter gun control laws.But despite overwhelming public opinionin the wake of the massacre,and extensivelobbying by families of the victims,the meas-ure failed by two votes.The gun lobby,of course,sees things in adifferent way.They argue the answer to guncrimes is not more gun control but less.Theirargument basically amounts to mutually as-sured destruction,i.e.that criminals will beless likely to commit crimes if they know oneof their victims might be armed,or that thoseon a shooting rampage might be stopped byan armed individual nearby.Even if this logic were sound,I personallywouldn’t want to live in some sort of night-marish wild-west society where violence isonly contained by the threat of more vio-lence.But the fact is that this logic is notbased in any reality—countries like Eng-land that have much stricter gun control lawshave far less gun deaths.In 2004,guns killed73 people in England and Wales,and 11,344in the U.S.If we adjust for population size,that’s still 26 times more gun deaths in theU.S.The logic of the gun lobby isn’t even basedon a reasonable interpretation of the SecondAmendment.It is,instead,based on fanaticalobsession with owning large amounts of high-powered firearms.It is a tragic quirk of the American character,not a valid policyposition.And it is killing us.In the past weeksalone,dozens have died in a number of shooting rampages.And with many criseshigher on the nation’s agenda than gun con-trol these days,the killing is likely to contin-ue for the foreseeable future.
David Goldbrenner can be reached at gold-bren@stanford.edu.
The logic ofthegun lobby [is]based on fanaticalobsession withowning largeamounts ofhigh-powered firearms.
...no one swung awatch in front ofmyface or massaged mytemples.
T
OO
B
IG
T
O
F
AIL
JennaReback
How I learned to stop worrying and lovehypnotherapy
T
HE
V
OICE OF
E
XPERIENCE
The NRA victorious
DavidGoldbrenner
of 00
04/15/09 - The Stanford Daily [PDF]
571 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | |
| Rating: | |
| Upload Date: | 04/16/2009 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Leave a Comment