Letters to the Editor

Politicians always lie to protect the public

Christopher Gillott has some misconceptions about President Clinton that require clarification. The fact that Clinton lied showed one thing -- he is a brilliant diplomat. Politicians are taught to lie; it is their profession. They are chosen by the people to run the country, and when things go wrong, lie about it so we can all sleep comfortably. For example, the economy is never bad, it is simply adjusting to global trends and investment patterns. Iraq was never bombed, it was forcefully pushed toward a settlement with the United States and the United Nations. These people lie because we don’t want to hear the truth. If they told us the truth, suicide rates would be skyrocketing.

We must remind the Penn State population that Newt Gingrich also lied, in front of Congress, but what he did was met with a simple slap on the wrist. Is he to be held at a lower standard than the president? I think not.

Who did the president hurt who hasn’t already accepted his apologies and paraded around with him in public? Yes, he lied. But did his lying in some way affect the ability of the United States to act as a world power? No. The media circus is not his fault, the media and our attention have created that. The Young Americans for Freedom, as represented by Gillott, actively support Clinton’s impeachment not for any moral reasons, but for the fact that President Clinton is not Rush Limbaugh and is not rushing to build a wall between Mexico and the United States, cut all welfare programs, send the troops to colonize the Middle East (except Israel, of course) and sell the country to Microsoft.

Martin Austermuhle
sophomore-international politics

A number of Penn State employees are discriminated against by the so-called moral dilemma addressed by state Sen. Jake Corman and state representatives Herman and Benninghoff. In the long run, students will also be harmed, either financially or educationally, by their policies and President Spanier’s reaction to them.

Believe it or not, same-sex partners have the ability and desire to form a relationship identical to that of a married heterosexual partnership. Accepting this fact does not threaten the institution of marriage, nor does it trivialize heterosexual married couples. There is no logic to deducing that. It simply recognizes and accepts simple facts. Not everyone is straight. There are gay people, and they are capable of the same love and commitment as that of heterosexuals. This "ability" is apparently under debate.

The policies of Corman, Herman and Benninghoff prevent homosexual couples with the same commitment as heterosexuals from the same benefits without financial harm to the university. Spanier’s submissiveness to their policies harm the university’s standards. Our local representatives impose local conservative fears on what is supposed to be a universal community.

Our representatives have demonstrated that ignorance and ambiguity has replaced knowledge and understanding. Their faults have prevented equal benefits deserved by Penn State employees and their companions. Benninghoff seems to think that providing these benefits is to condone radical behavior that threatens the institution of marriage. On the contrary, our state legislature’s blatant discrimination devalues the commitment by refusing to recognize it.

Daniel Halperin
sophomore-public relations and political science

The article "Solar power not ideal for Penn State," in the Collegian Wednesday failed to provide an accurate picture of solar energy’s potential at University Park. Though the article mentioned a couple of positive attributes, it ultimately reinforces a popular misconception that solar technologies are not effective.

Perhaps the single most important way we can make use of the sun’s energy would be to design our buildings in ways to maximize the use of sunlight for heating and lighting purposes. The other major solar technology involves using solar collectors to heat pipes of water. At Penn State, we could greatly reduce our energy needs and preheat our water using solar energy.

Economically speaking, passive solar design can have relatively quick paybacks. Adding some solar technology to a building may cost a little more initially, but if the amount of money we save by having it equals the amount we put in after only about five years, then the rest of this building’s 50 year life, it is effectively making the university money.

Think of the tremendous amount of unused space on the rooftops of campus buildings. What if we covered them with photovoltaic panels and allowed our campus to constantly be producing its own electricity? An institution of higher education such as Penn State should be eager to lead us into the next millennium with such demonstrations of mindfulness.

Garrett Fitzgerald
senior-environmental energy engineering