Greens react to Avocado Pit

Dear Editor:

I sympathize with the concerns that motivated Andrew Riely to write last week's Avocado Pit ("Green Party betrays itself and its liberal principles"). The balance of power in the Senate is indeed a key factor in the defense of the environment (and other liberal foci) at the national political level. However, Riely's arguments are less than indisputable.

Riely criticizes the Green Party for having the audacity to run a candidate in an election. This is one of the main functions of a political party. Riely's attitude seems to be that the Green Party has not yet earned the right to behave like a "real" party. He contemptuously bemoans the Greens' "clinging to their self-appointed [my italics] identity of independence (and isolation)." Would Riely argue that independence is something that must be bestowed, rather than claimed? Does he mean to imply that they are not, in fact, independent? In attacking the Green Party for endorsing its own candidate, Riely is either denying the Green Party's "partyhood" or denying the nature of the term "political party" as it is widely understood.

The statement that the Minnesota Green Party is "intent on defeating" Wellstone is a glaring misrepresentation. Endorsing a candidate to run against Wellstone was an issue of great debate within the party, and it is likely that a significant proportion of Minnesota Greens will cast their votes for Wellstone in November. That the Green Party endorsed a candidate does not mean that all Green votes are automatically consigned to that candidate—another reason that Riely's attack on the party itself is misdirected. I would ask again on what grounds Riely questions the party's right to run candidates. The Democratic Party is not entitled to any vote; perhaps Democrats and their supporters should focus more energy on earning voter support than on attempting to strip competing parties of their validity.

By the end of his article, the object of Riely's ire changes. He shifts his criticism directly to Ray Tricomo's Senate bid and those who support it. Though at least addressed to a more appropriate target, Riely's criticisms are no less contestable. He finds it absurd that Tricomo is running based on the premise that Wellstone and Coleman are not significantly different. I question the veracity of Riely's claim that this is the case. It would indeed be ridiculous for Tricomo to run on such an assertion, but to my knowledge he is not doing so. I do not profess to be an authority on Tricomo's campaign; however, I do wonder if Riely himself is one.

Riely seems enmeshed in the tangle of fear and intimidation that surrounds our current two-party system. He criticizes Ralph Nader's presidential campaign for electing Bush (a questionable assertion in itself); in the same spirit, then, I could blame every voter who cast a "useless" vote for Al Gore. I grieve the freedom to vote my political conscience because apparently it is dead—victim to the mentality that the only candidate worth anyone's vote is one who is "electable," to use the un-word of current fashion. If Riely truly believes that the Green Party has "so many good ideas and such a healthy message," perhaps he should bewail the fact that we have not yet instituted political changes such as instant-runoff voting, for example, rather than implying that the party should resign itself to impotent political limbo.

Riely's attack on the actions of the Green Party is unnecessary and arguably irrelevant. What he fears is any shift in voter support from Wellstone to Tricomo. He should devote his energy to garnering support for Wellstone's bid for re-election, not to attempting to repudiate the Green Party's right to participate in political contests.

Nora Hilty '05
 

Think before you print

Dear Editor:

Did you know that the average Macalester student uses 140 sheets of paper every year? That means that as a college, we use 250,000 sheets of paper every year. And that is just in the library computer labs. But so far this year in the computer labs, we as a college have used a fifth of the paper we used last year. At this rate, we will surpass last year's totals by over 200 percent! What does that mean for you? It is up to each of us to help reduce the paper we use. I know, you've heard this message before, and you're a conscious paper user. It's everyone else that has the problem, right? Wrong! We all need to think about the impacts each and every one of us has on this college's ridiculous paper usage. At this point, I'm sure you've noticed that in the labs, you can now choose to use a printer that uses recycled paper. What you may also have noticed is that sometimes those printers do not actually print on recycled paper. What's the deal? Well, the library has run out of one-sided recycled paper. So starting this week, you will notice bins around campus that say "One-sided white paper." In these bins, please place any white paper printed on one side that you don't need anymore. This paper will then be taken to the library computer labs and used in the recycled paper printers. It's a cyclical thing, and we all can make it work! But that's just half the problem. We are still eating up paper in the labs at an alarming rate. We all need to think about what we're printing. Think twice about what you print, if it can be on recycled paper, or if you can even print double-sided or with multiple pages on a sheet. If you don't know how to print double sided or put multiple pages on a sheet, ask one of the lab monitors, they'll be happy to show you! So next time you go to hit the print button, think twice and do your part to curb our insatiable paper appetite here at Macalester.

Nora Scherer '03

Liz Fitzgerald '04