|
OPINION
| October 10, 2003
Editorial/Our View
Letters
‘Diet’ takes incorrect approach
Re: Stress Diet, Oct. 1
Within this article, the author praises the university’s supposed
fitness program by forcing students to walk various distances and
reducing calories. There is a serious flaw in this argument.
While exercise is beneficial in helping a person lose weight and
reducing calories is important, the diet mentioned is more hazardous
to a student’s health than beneficial.
Drinking coffee, while a good way to stimulate the body for a short
time, is not a meal. Yes, the calories are severely cut, but a person’s
health is far from sound. When calories are drastically reduced,
the body enters starvation mode and begins storing any intake as
fat and cannibalizing the body — mainly muscles — for
energy. The body is no longer efficient in its use of what is consumed.
Also, stress does reduce weight. However, the negative effects of
long-term stress are harmful, including but not limited to, increased
heart rate and high blood pressure.
If a person was to follow the writer’s program, the person
would not be able to attend school after midterm because their bodies
would collapse.
Students have a hard enough time with school without being misinformed
about what actions to take to remain healthy in a nation that is
unhealthy overall.
— Jeremy Scott Cox, kinesiology junior
Writer’s argument paints stereotype
Re: More Human than Humans, Oct. 3
Not only did this offer a skewed point of view, it depicted an inaccurate
stereotype of liberals.
As a liberal, I am not as radical as People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, Earth Liberation Front or other similar groups. It would
be ignorant of me to stereotype the writer, Jessica Smith, as a
war-monger, racist or Christian fanatic. I’ll safely assume,
though, based on the attitude of this article, that she is conservative.
The arguments made in the column are valid but fail to address some
facts. Readers should know the National Wildlife Refuge only contains
2 percent of the world’s petroleum reserves.
The column also fails to note that if drilling were to start tomorrow,
10 years would pass before the supply reaches the market. Suppose
we wait 10 years — the drilled amount would only furnish roughly
six months of national demand.
So the conservative point of view is to drill the pristine Alaska
terrain so Americans can save 30 cents at the pump for six months.
Then we go back to paying the original price we tried to avoid.
Sounds smart to me.
Let me offer a more viable alternative. We must conserve. Your failure
to note that Republicans — whose campaigns are largely funded
through soft money from oil companies — stand to benefit from
allowing oil firms to drill.
If Republican politicians really cared for energy resources, they
would seek other forms of energy production — not one that
hinges upon the industry to which they owe their jobs.
— David Ortez, political science freshman
|
|
