Letters to the Editor

ABOUT JIM

Thank you for sharing your perspective on Jim Plunkett ("Heart of a Legend," November/December). Here is mine from the early '70s. I was a high school student in San Francisco, and as a second-generation Mexican-American he was my role model. I wanted to go to Stanford, because he went there. In fact, I applied to only two schools, Cal being the other.

I graduated with a BS in civil engineering and paid for one-half of my tuition and room/board by working as a grocery clerk in the City's Cala Foods. (Scholarships funded the balance.) It was not more complicated than the fact he and I shared nationalities, and he was attending a prestigious university when our people were not much more famous than migrant farm workers.

Carlos R. Hernandez, '79
San Francisco, California

What a terrific and poignant article about Jim Plunkett. Those of us privileged to be students during his magical Heisman year will never forget those moments and how proud of Stanford he made us. I had the honor of telling him that in person a few years ago during one of the coaches' alumni tours in San Diego. After reading the article, I could only think of another ancient warrior, with these lines from Tennyson's "Ulysses":

. . . and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Keep striving, Jim.

Wayne Raffesberger, '73
San Diego, California

Your cover caption for the Jim Plunkett story says it all—Still the One. He had no peer as a player, and does anyone know a better person than Jim Plunkett? Bob Murphy was right about the Heisman Trophy race. He just told the straight story of who Jim was and what he was doing on the field. It's now 40 years past that year of glory, but as your story shows, he's still the One.

Dick Ragsdale, '65, JD '69
Skillman, New Jersey

I'm a longtime professional writer, and I thought the story about Jim Plunkett was wonderful. High fives to Michael Antonucci.

Hank Shaw, '73
Rochester, New York

As a biologist, I am fascinated by new research on human cooperation. Recent experiments with infants agree with results of theoretical models of behavior: Humans have an exceptional ability to give to others without any promise of immediate return; to think of the common good at the expense of narrow self-interest. Thank you for reminding me that I need not have looked further than Jim Plunkett and his teammates ("Jim Plunkett, Human Being," First Impressions, November/December). I recall with joy some of those games of their ascendancy that I watched as a member of the Stanford Band. Somehow I got news of the 1970 Rose Bowl and Randy the Rabbit's touchdown, although I was far away and this was way before the Internet. I'm not much of a football fan, but for many years I looked up Plunkett's successes as a professional. In short, he has been a role model for me for the qualities that you so correctly emphasize. Thank you, Jim, and Plunkett to 'em!

Nick Waser, '70
Tucson, Arizona

I just finished your First Impressions piece and the article on Jim Plunkett. Enjoyed both immensely.

I arrived at Stanford in the summer of 1970 for graduate work in history en route to teaching at West Point—after my second Vietnam tour. The 1970 season, in which my wife and I attended all the home games, was a great thrill. I still remember the stunned look on the faces of the USC team after the game: Stanford beat us? When we made it to the Rose Bowl, each student was allowed to purchase one ticket. Fortunately, a good friend of mine, also in the history department, could not make the game and sold me his ticket.

My wife and I decided that, after a year apart, we'd do it up right. We got bleacher seats for the Parade of Roses and had a real ball at the game. Because my undergrad alma mater, Army, had lost to Navy four years in a row when I was a cadet, this win was special—and I frequently trained my binoculars on the Ohio State sideline, where I received much joy from watching [Buckeyes head coach] Woody Hayes go apoplectic in the second half each time Plunkett completed another pass.

Thank you for a great story. I am among Jim's very many admirers.

Hal Winton, MA '71, PhD '77
Montgomery, Alabama

BROUGHT TO BOOK

Thanks for an interesting and timely article on the U.S. publishing industry ("Tomorrow's Reading," Showcase, November/December ).

The writer wonders whether bookless publishing will lead to a world "mired in dross." In many respects, we're already there, at least in the United States. For years, American publishers have been abandoning the old-school model of identifying promising authors and working with them to develop their talents and output. Now, the emphasis is on the quick hit, the next big score, the novel that will translate into a Hollywood blockbuster. In nonfiction, American book publishing is increasingly about fads. The photo of publisher John Sargent in front of a bookcase with The Scarsdale Diet prominently displayed says almost as much about the U.S. publishing industry as the article itself. Meanwhile, smaller publishers that might have had the flexibility and niche market appeal to withstand developments like Amazon.com and Kindle have been swallowed up in mergers or forced out of business.

Years ago, during one of the U.S. auto industry's regular crises, it was remarked that "the biggest problem with Detroit is Detroit." Meaning: ingrown, insular, self-referential, smugly confident of their product, even though it was lacking. Perhaps the same applies to the U.S. publishing industry. A question unasked in the article, and well worth asking: How are publishers in Europe, Japan and Latin America doing these days?

David Rearwin, PhD '73
La Jolla, California

STUDENTS DISAPPOINT

I was genuinely disappointed by the "Doing Business Better" article (Farm Report, November/December). The students interviewed displayed no understanding or compassion for the impact of the financial crisis on the non-MBA part of the United States—all of those people out of work and losing their homes. All I read was, "Not everybody is bad" (similar to what small children say when they are caught breaking rules) and "I hope none of us would be that stupid." That was all. Where are the ethical questions in those comments? There were none. Stupid, yes, but it was much more than just stupidity. The people who did this ruined millions of lives.

How can students of a business school not even think to reflect on that when interviewed for publication? It's worse than I thought. It is clear that we can't just live in hope that business people will not be so stupid when it's also clear they are so out of touch. They can't regulate their own behavior. This much has been proven.

Mark Linne, MS '79, PhD '85
Göteborg, Sweden

CONSIDER THORIUM

"Schneider's Legacy" (Letters, November/December) and "Coal Mining Through the Lens" (Red All Over, November/December) show the devastating environmental effects of mining and burning coal. Consequently, coal-fired power plants should be replaced as fast as possible by thorium-fueled nuclear power plants, which avoid the objections to uranium nuclear plants. Thorium-fueled nuclear plants will not melt down; their waste material dissipates in less than 500 years; thorium is cheaper than uranium, because it is more abundant in nature; and thorium plants have been tested. They operated successfully at Oak Ridge, Tenn., and were abandoned only because bombs could not be made with thorium.

I urge readers to go to www.thoriumenergyalliance.com for more information and then to promote thorium-fueled nuclear power to generate electricity.

Hershey Julien, '39
Sunnyvale, California

CRITICAL THINKING

Congratulations on the magazine. It is an excellent source of news and interesting articles connected to the Farm. In particular I want to commend you for letting us know about the preliminary results of the task force examining undergraduate education ("What Do Students Need to Learn?" Farm Report, November/December).

Although I attended Stanford as a graduate student, I always cherished the opportunity I had to think critically and analyze ethical dimensions on complex issues in many of the courses I took. These skills, as Professor [James] Campbell indicates, have been crucial in my professional life, working on areas of development and health in developing countries. These skills are also essential in dealing with the economic/political issues we are facing in our country, health sector reform among them. The fact that we are the last industrialized country to try to provide health insurance to an estimated 40-plus million citizens should give us pause for thought.

Humberto Arango, MA '72
New York, New York

CONTRARY OPINIONS

In the November/December Letters ("More Is Less"), Phil Rogers and Drew Keeling wax unfounded regarding global population—more people, lower quality of life (Rogers)—and equate climate change denial to denial of evolution, World War II and the Holocaust (Keeling). Absurd assertions all.

The causes, effects and solutions to the global warming "problem" are far from settled in both the scientific community and among sentient humans. Your correspondents would benefit from studying the work of Bjørn Lomborg, who believes that we are indeed in a period of global warming. He predicts that the average global temperature will increase by a shocking but barely measurable 0.02 percent in the next 100 years and any effort to reduce this to zero would require expenditure of unimaginable amounts of capital that could be better spent to greatly benefit humanity. An example: eradicating disease, a project to which Rogers [might] object because lower mortality rates in mostly poor countries, which suffer disproportionately from disease, would increase global population. One would hope that whatever solution Rogers has for his perceived overpopulation is a benign one.

Of course Lomborg might prove to be wrong, but a study of his work raises at least a reasonable doubt that going into full panic mode on greenhouse gases in particular and global warming in general is the solution to what is more than likely a non-problem.

I confess to being one of the unembarrassed deniers suffering a lapse of judgment complained of by Keeling. He chastises the editor for allowing the publication of opinions contrary to his. Perhaps the First Amendment does not apply in Kuesnacht, Switzerland, from whence he writes.

Bill Wright, '55
Grants Pass, Oregon

Stanford sees fit to publish a letter comparing those who deny climate change to those who deny the Holocaust. Really? I had to read that letter twice. I know lots of extremely bright people—scientists, educators, climatologists—who absolutely believe that climate change is nonsense. To compare these people to those who refute the Holocaust is not only disingenuous but a terrible slur. Before Stanford falls into the abyss of, say, the National Enquirer pit, I suggest you choose your letters with greater care.

Sloane Citron, MBA '80
Menlo Park, California

IT WAS CONGRESS, NOT OBAMA

When the only letters to the editor to oppose insuring 30 million more Americans are just spouting the talking points of Faux News, it's time for a civics lesson ("AARP and Health Care," November/December). When the previous president's administration handed over an almost complete Patriot Act and a Republican Congress rubber-stamped it, nobody called it the Bush Patriot Act, even after parts were found unconstitutional and his White House was found to intentionally abuse other parts in an unconstitutional manner. Since his administration wrote what became the TARP bailout that helped the wealthy while ignoring Main Street and it was rubber-stamped by a Democratic-controlled Congress, I've yet to hear anyone on the major cable news network calling it the Bush TARP Act.

However, let's look at the health care law that was passed. Senate and House of Representatives committees created separate bills; nothing was handed to them by the White House. Democratic majorities drove the bills and Republican minority committee members added hundreds of amendments. The bills were separately passed, they were reconciled, both houses passed the reconciliation bills, and then it was sent to the president for a signature.

Yet, notice that the unanimous voices complaining about the bill referred to "Obamacare," as if it was created the same way as the Patriot Act and the Wall Street bailout. The same people also tend to ignore that a majority of Americans supported the health care overhaul until those opposed to helping Americans in the bottom 95 percent of the wealth pool lied about "death panels," "Obamacare" and everything else they could think of in order to protect the entrenched oligopoly.

We are the only major industrialized nation without national health care. When people must openly lie to prevent more Americans from getting coverage, it's irritating. When STANFORD dignifies those lies, it's a travesty destroying the claims Stanford makes about its graduates. The magazine and the school like to present the University as a place of learning, but where was the learning expressed in the letters? Rather, it seemed to reflect an unthinking attitude of wealth that learned nothing from any history or civics classes they might have been forced to attend.

David Teich, MS '88
Dallas, Texas

The letter from Richard Brewster dismisses the recently approved health care legislation as "ObamaCare," without offering any constructive criticism. I found this to be a shallow, partisan response to a critically important issue. The horrendous inequity and lack of cost-effectiveness of America's public health system has long demanded change. While the recently approved health care legislation, passed in the face of a poisonous congressional environment, may be imperfect, a letter exhibiting such a dismissive attitude seems unworthy of publication in a Stanford alumni publication.

Chet McQuaide, MS '71
Duluth, Georgia

CAMERA CONTROLS

As Professor Levoy says, let's open up the camera's controls ("A Camera with a Brain," September/October). However, if you own a Canon point-and-shoot, you can open up the controls and do all of the things described in the article and more. The freeware program CHDK hacks the Canon software; I'm surprised this was not mentioned (see http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK). There is an important difference: In Frankencamera the final product is generated in-camera; with CHDK you need to use your digital darkroom for post-processing for some effects.

All digital cameras are computers, and if the marketing departments would allow it, they could be programmed by users. For the moment we are saddled with pre-programmed effects that get more complex as we pay more for "better" models. It would be difficult to sell a $600 camera if your $150 camera had all those features.

Charles Bragg Jr., '67
Pacific Palisades, California

AARP AND HEALTH CARE

Your September/October issue had an interesting story about AARP's CEO A. Barry Rand ("Gray Matters"). He was obviously asleep when his MBA program addressed economics and integrity.

Rand's style is excellent as it relates to motivating. AARP publication articles focus on portraying isolated situations as if they were endemic, in an effort to gain reader sympathy. To say Rand helped explain how the health care legislation would operate is misleading at best; few if any know even today the full ramifications of the program.

Rand should have been focusing on efforts to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare—programs we pay into that are the backbone of our retirement economics. In 2011, seniors are facing possible loss of their medical care if doctor reimbursement rates are reduced by 25 percent. And AARP articles are now addressing the problem of paying for the new health care. If Rand were so competent, shouldn't that have been a major part of his efforts?

Snake-oil salesmen are what they are. Let's not promote them.

Bill Pahland, '57, MS '59
Chico, California

'POOR JUDGEMENT'

I was extremely offended and saddened that your magazine chose to print the letter from David Altschul ("Iranian Conundrum," September/October). In two paragraphs, he managed to accuse the current U.S. government of appointing "czars that usurp Congress" and tacitly approving a minority group of "killing white babies," and implied that the president of the United States is a fundamentalist Muslim (a charge that has been thoroughly refuted). This smacks of the worst kind of racism and demonization that has targeted Obama and his administration; it can even incite violence. (The letter also seems to have very little to do with the article it is commenting on, ["The Iranian Optimist," July/August] which apparently provided a pretext for these accusations.)

Altschul has a perfect right to his views under the principles of this country and under this government that he so despises. However, the fact that you chose to print (and in some way endorse) this ridiculous and offensive material shows very poor judgment. It makes me ashamed to be a Stanford grad associated with this kind of thinking, and it was not worthy of a magazine such as yours. It certainly doesn't help when I'm considering sending my child to be educated at Stanford or when contemplating making a donation to the University.

David Hirning, '91
Seattle, Washington

The following letters did not appear in the print edition of Stanford.

ROSE BOWL MEMORY

The heartwarming portrayal of Jim Plunkett ("Heart of a Legend," November/December) reminded me that the 1951 Rose Bowl game was the only one my wife and I have been able to attend. Our seats were near the bench where Woody Hayes directed the Ohio State team. Our most memorable moment was at the end of the game when Jim threw the winning touchdown pass to Randy Vataha. Woody took off his hat, threw it on the ground, jumped on it, and proceeded to destroy it to show his displeasure with how the game ended. We hope Andrew Luck can provide a similar memory in January.

Earl, PhD '60, and Giselle Brabb
Rocklin, California

GIVING TWICE

I couldn't agree more with Jon Stark's letter ("Embarrassment of Riches," September/October). What is Stanford doing accepting $190.4 million of a federal giveaway? Has John Hennessy overlooked the fact that many alumni are also official U.S. taxpayers?

Why does Stanford need to solicit funds from alumni when the administration is willing to take federal handouts for which the alums have to pay the cost? Our payments in the form of taxes on the $190.4 million giveaway can, and should, be in lieu of alumni contributions to the Stanford operating budget and endowment.

J.C. Bageman, '56
Las Vegas, Nevada

Address letters to:

Letters to the Editor
Stanford magazine
Arrillaga Alumni Center
326 Galvez Street
Stanford, CA 94305-6105

Or fax to (650) 725-8676; or send us an email. You may also submit your letter online. Letters may be edited for length, clarity and civility. Please note that your letter may appear in print, online or both.