UO should conserve energy
I was walking by the EMU late Thursday night while doing security for the street fair, and I noticed a custodial worker cleaning the hallway floors near the Buzz. From far away, I immediately noticed how bright the Buzz and nearby hallways appeared. It was 3 a.m., and the Buzz could have been open from the brilliant light coming out of the EMU. Every light in the coffee shop was on. The hallway lights were shining radiantly. This is not only unnecessary but completely wasteful.
As a student from a campus renowned for its vast organizations, activism and environmentally friendly attitude, I find it quite ridiculous, if not embarrassing, that our campus wastes so much energy.
In light of the recent hikes in energy rates influencing the new energy surcharge, I hope that students would at least be motivated by the ever influential money-saving factor, if not pure energy conservation.
We as students have the most power to influence classroom conditions. We should be screaming, “Turn off the lights at night! Drop the heat a few degrees!” Small steps like these can make a campus our size save a great deal of energy and money.
My suggestion is simple. Let’s turn off a few bulbs, wear an extra layer, turn off computers at night, socialize on the bus ride to school and bring Eugene back to the ideals it has been known for — a conscientious community — and make conservation not simply a passing fad, but a permanent lifestyle.

Carmen Stuewe

international studies

We must annihilate states

that breed terrorists
Sarah Hatstat asks in her letter if the sweeping war of self-defense advocated in the advertisement “End states who sponsor terrorism” (ODE, 10/15) is terrorist itself (“Full page ad was shocking,” ODE, 10/24). I have a question: Where have you been? The essence of actual terrorism was made perceptual in the events of Sept. 11, when death-seeking mystics smashed into those pursuing happy life on Earth. A war of self-defense against those who seek death is not an act of terrorism, but justice in the name of our love of life.
Perhaps Hatstat questions the need for heavy civilian casualties in a war against terrorist states. But we cannot win a war where we furnish the enemy with a way to escape defeat: Does anyone doubt Taliban soldiers are now hiding amongst the neighborhoods, hospitals and mosques the Bush administration has promised not to bomb, and are going to shoot the first American soldiers who get close enough? Further, so long as our self-restraint keeps us from defeating the enemy, terrorist states are emboldened, which guarantees more American victims.
Civilians must die if our enemies are forced to surrender and American lives are to be saved. The culpability for this horror belongs to the terrorists and their supporters, not to those who would secure a world free from terror.
Indeed, the “friends of peace” opposing annihilation of states that breed terrorists are actually enemies of peace, because their pacifism paves the way for slaughter after slaughter of Americans.

Brad Williams

Portland