The toughest part of responding to Hung Vu’s column (“Lighting Up,” March 16) is knowing where to begin. Vu proves to be a difficult writer to endure grammatically and a master of logical non sequitur. Even less impressively, his simplistic attack on President John T. Casteen, III reveals a glaring ignorance of political history and corporate governance. Perhaps worst of all, Vu takes it upon himself to ascribe motive to Casteen’s decisions, and he cannot manage to do it respectfully or with any trace of humility.
Based on Vu’s assessment of where Virginia stands on some mythical hierarchy of state progressivism, the Commonwealth has been taking steps “forward” by electing Democratic governors and “going blue” in 2008. Following Vu’s proxy for progressivism, does he also think that Mississippi was progressive when it went heavily Democratic in the 1952 and 1956 presidential elections or that Alabama was sufficiently progressive when segregationist Democrat George Wallace was governor? Maybe Vu should take a history class rather than blast a trumpet about his social psychology pursuits.
It might also be a good idea for Vu to read something about what a corporate board does. A small amount of education could go a long way toward explaining what a company with over $16 billion in revenue does other than exploit children with cigarette ads (hint: it includes providing jobs and health care to employees, financial return to investors and, in 2008, over $48 million in charitable giving).
Vu manages to flail around wildly in his last few paragraphs, simultaneously dismissing and embracing fundamental attribution error, equating “Jeffersonian ideals” with hypocrisy, and, cheaply, summing it all up by deciding that one explanation exists outside the realm of Vu omniscience: “the decision was just Casteen being Casteen.” How enlightening.
Vu worries about broad-brush geography-based “stigmas.” Maybe he should first consider the “Vu being Vu” stigma that he now bears so prominently — the combination of poor journalism, tawdry reasoning, and unfounded invective.
George Craddock
Darden ‘10
no amount of benefit to investors, profits, taxes, or health insurance excuses the fact that tobacco causes a huge amount of death and physical illness that contributes heavily to the cost of health care in this country. The fact that tobacco and alcohol are under the control of the Dept of Alcohol, Tobacco , and Firearms keeps tobacco and alcohol on the market since it is not controled by the Food and Drug Administration. Federal, State, and local taxes plus the fact that banning the products would result in a serious black market demand prevents Congress apparently from abolishing the Dept of Alcohol, Tob. and Firarms and turning control of those products back to the Food and Drug Administration. Tobacco and Alcohol are not required to label their contents so that the public can determine exactly what chemicals are being consumed by them. There is no justification for those products to be allowed to be made and sold to the public.
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Great letter, George..
Joseph, you make a good point here – and I agree that the ATF is not that necessary a bureaucracy at this point. All three should get put into the oversight of other bureaucrats. But the FDA is corrupt, and Planned Parenthood gets away with far worse misinformation every day – as do many university “health” systems like UVA’s. Thus, we are now the world’s # 1 country for breast cancer incidence. But nobody, including you , seems to care in the slightest about this. There are partisan blinders on so many people. There are certain kinds of cancer causing products that are protected by the PC police.
So your war against the tobacco companies – who at least are now honest and straightforward with their warning labels – is curious given your silent support of a larger domestic industry that gets away with far worse, and does so by misleading millions of people every day.
http://breastcancer.about.com/b/2010/01/08/abortion-birth-control-pills.htm
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
The toughest part about responding to this letter is George Craddock’s blatant, unfounded elitism. It is hard to debate someone with such an obvious intellectual superiority complex, especially when it is completely unwarranted.
He uses language such as “mythical hierarchy of state progressivism”, “broad-brush geography-based ‘stigmas’”, and “blast a trumpet about his social psychology pursuits.” I have no idea what he means with any of these statements. To me, it seems like he uses such complicated, confusing language in an attempt to sound sophisticated and intelligent. In doing so, the merits of his argument (some of which are valid) are somewhat lost upon the reader. Simple, clear, and concise language is much more effective in communicating the argument. It seems to me like Craddock is trying to sound smarter than he actually is – which is very typical UVa, elitist, WASPy, bulls**t that I experienced for five years (03-08).
I think most people agree that Hung Vu’s column was not very well argued. Neither is this letter though. Comparing southern democrats from the 1950s with Virginia democrats of today is absolutely absurd. It completely ignores how politics and the 2 parties have transformed over the past 50+ years. The southern democrats of the 50s and 60s (example: Lyndon Johnson) were very similar to what we call neo-conservatives today. They believed in an aggressive foreign policy (Vietnam), while promoting the welfare state (Great Society programs) and not protecting American Sovereignty. The neoconservatives of today are very similar. We’ve seen the aggressive foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan (and hopefully not Iran in the future) and we’ve seen the welfare state at play with the Bush/Cheney bailouts. The rhetoric of Neoconservatives often seeks to appease fiscal conservatives (and get votes), but in practice, they support the welfare state-a big business welfare state.
When I first read this letter, my instinct was to conclude that its author had a sheltered upbring (like many UVa students) – one in which ignorance takes precedence over knowledge, and one in which WASPy culture takes precedence over diversity. Am I jumping to conclusions? Maybe. After reading the letter multiple times though, I still feel the same way, that this letter is indicative of typical, UVa, elitism. Way to meet the stereotype Mr. Craddock. (Are you going to call me a peasant now?)
Also I would like to make a comment about Craddock’s point that the company gives 48 million of its 16 billion dollar revenue to charity every year. That’s approximately 1/320, a little less in fact. If I gave 1/320 of my 50,000 dollar yearly revenue, it would be a measly 156 dollars. Relatively speaking, 48 million dollars is almost nothing.
Finally, I would like to make 1 last point: Many people (including me) believe that working for a tobacco company or a defense contractor is simply immoral. In my opinion, the immorality of cheating on a physics test pales in comparison to working for an immoral company that profits from war, death, disease, and addiction. What kind of example does it set when the former President of the University does something many deem far more immoral than cheating on a test?
Agree/Disagree:
0 
1