Knepper should be held accountable
While I feel sincerely sorry for Knepper losing his eye the night of the riots, I feel I must share a different perspective on this shortcoming.
I was also there for parts of the riot, and was leaving the riots at approximately the same time as he states. Walking down the same street, the police were not shooting anywhere near us - let alone directly at anyone's head. One would have had to stay far longer in the area of The Hut or the street to be in the line of fire.
I also cannot understand Knepper's statement that he believes the police officer "aimed for the head." These small bean bags were randomly shot into the audience of the people who were still rioting on the street - causing damage, or still watching those causing damage. They cannot fly far, as in all the way down the street, nor are they accurate enough to be able to purposely shoot someone in the eye.
I understand Knepper is upset. Losing an eye is a horrible experience, and I am sure I would feel similar had it been me. Yet, I feel some accountability is owed on his part and the part of the other students there, myself included. We knew things were going bad, and we also knew what we were getting ourselves into by staying and watching. It is the nature of human curiosity. However, that doesn't make the police's actions any less appropriate. It is time to stop pointing the finger and hold ourselves accountable.
Kate Vesely
political science senior
Protesters on the right track
In his letter, Ben Kalt refers to protesters as "simple-minded humanitarians." How is the noble ideal of helping people - no matter what their station - simple-minded? If you look at Mexico, you see an obvious fact. Free trade has allowed the economy to grow to be sure, yet the amount of people living below the poverty line has only increased! Seventy-three percent of the population lives in abject poverty and it is increasing even in the wake of our much lauded "free trade." The last time I checked this treaty was supposed to improve people's lives.
Granted, the rich businessmen of Mexico are richer. The facts are clear - the local, rich elite in South America are all salivating, as are those in Washington. You would not know this from your precious "free press," but the accord is not even close to "ratified." There are some resistive governments who truly have a sense of compassion for their own people and the environment. Venezuela, Brazil and others have vowed to oppose the treaty in its present form. If anything, the talks were a failure, something that no one seems to mention.
The people at the protest were not all "Parochial Americans," there were people of every country. If the corporate media had truly and fairly reported the recent proceedings in Quebec City, Kalt would have never written his letter attacking the 20 protesters. The sheer arrogance that America is the sole "savior" of the "Third World" is stunning. As if the people in El Salvador should be grateful for our pollution, our unsafe, crippling factories and our exploitation of their land and peoples through their corrupt, compliant government. Do recall that corporations are fascist institutions with only one aim in mind, social progress be damned.
Carlos Chiquete
physics and astronomy freshman
Death penalty should not be abolished
I am responding to Laura Winsky's April 30 commentary titled, "Come One, Come All." Winsky has, as is the tendency of liberal opponents of the death penalty, completely missed the point of the punishment. First off, Winsky is correct in stating that the death penalty is not a deterrent. But it is not intended as a deterrent. The reason we have a death penalty, and the reason societies have had one for thousands of years, is for justice. We put murderers to death not to deter future murderers, but because people who kill others in inhumane or excessive manners deserve to die. Period. If you want justification for why justice demands the death penalty, consult Immanuel Kant or Thomas Hobbes or any of the other educated philosophers who have established the moral justification and even requirement of the death penalty. I personally shudder to think of a world where people like Tim McVeigh are allowed the right to life when they denied that same right to so many others.
Second, Winsky has also stated that, according to Kofi Annon, the death penalty is murder. This is simply not true. The killing of another person is not the same as murder. Murder is, by its very definition, the wrongful killing of another human being. Killing someone in self-defense is not murder.
Killing a soldier in war is not murder. The state putting someone to death is not murder, but rather a justified killing, just as self-defense and the killing of an enemy soldier are. We are not killing an innocent person - we are putting someone to death who has forfeited his right to live.
Further, Winsky has stated that we must not punish someone with a punishment that is 100 percent irreversible in a justice system that is not 100 percent perfect. The fact is every punishment is irreversible when taken in the proper perspective. A man found guilty of bank robbery and released five years later after new evidence proves his innocence will never get those five years of his life back no matter what the state may do to make amends. The claim that we shouldn't have the death penalty because the justice system is imperfect is not a reason to abolish the death penalty but rather one to improve the justice system.
Jeremy Zarzycki
criminal justice administration sophomore
Old-fashioned greed blocks improvement
The letters in the last few days leave the reader with the impression that the only thing poor people in the Third World are asking for are more sweatshops, and the only reason they are not getting them is groups such as SAS imposing standards which "make factories unprofitable."
While it's true that in the Third World many people need all the jobs they can get, they are perfectly aware that the way out of their situation involves more than waiting for the next sweatshop job that the Multinational Corporations will dole out. These people are willing to risk their lives to fight for their human and labor rights, just like people in the developed world have faced sacrifice and sometimes death to acquire those rights we now take for granted.
But are standards such as a living wage or trade union rights going to make manufacturing in these countries unprofitable? If those writers who suggested we look up an "elementary economics textbook" would have done some reading themselves, they would have realized that production costs are an insignificant factor in the retail price of most apparel. Michael Jordan, in his Nike sponsorship deal, was getting paid more than the combined income of all South Asian workers making Nike clothes.
Lowering the profit margin by a few percentage points, or increasing the retail price by a few cents, or spending a bit less on advertising would be more than enough to satisfy the most "extreme" demands of anti-sweatshop activists while maintaining profitability.
The obstacle to improving working conditions is not the necessity to stay profitable, but old-fashioned greed, which in a world with great disparities of wealth and power generates a "race to the bottom" with regard to human rights and labor standards. The only proven solution is organization and struggle, by workers and communities, to attain and defend those rights which all human beings should enjoy. The aim of groups such as SAS is to assist garment workers in this struggle. We are perfectly aware that sweatshop workers need these jobs, and are not trying to take them away, nor to impose on these workers standards from outside. But we also know that freedom to organize, a living wage, and an end to sexual and racial harassment of workers are not only basic human rights, but "economically attainable goals" everywhere and for everyone.
Giorgio Torrieri
physics graduate student
Cats need good care
I live about four miles from campus. Every year in May, several terrified cats show up in my yard. According to people at the Humane Society, students dump hundreds of cats when the summer begins, rather than taking them home or to the Humane Society. These cats have a terrible time learning to trust humans again, since their previous owners suddenly disappeared. If you have a cat and plan to leave Tucson, please either take your cat with you, find it a good home or take it to the Humane Society. There, it will have a chance to be adopted and won't suffer from terror when wandering the streets.
Sarah Richardson
ecology and evolutionary biology graduate student
Sex comes with responsibility
Where is the responsibility? Although I am pro-life, I do respect the opinions of those who disagree with my viewpoint. In "Letters" on April 27, I respected what Jennie James attested to about men and their strong viewpoints about being pro-life. Men just have no idea about what it is like to curl up and rock in the fetal position each month from those damn monthly cramps.
So, yes, I can agree with those who have different opinions about the highly controversial topic of abortion - however, I see another issue besides just the woman's right to choose being debated on this campus. It's the idea of responsibility. As I read Joshua White's opinion about abortion, I could feel my blood pressure start to boil. It seemed that the real issue is that teens don't want the responsibility of their actions - not that they are concerned about a woman's right to choose. This is what frustrates me. If you are going to have sex, then you have to be able to take responsibility for it. White said, "If the contraceptives that my fiancee and I used failed and we had a baby, it would destroy our lives." How sad that a living being would destroy your life. Obviously, sex wasn't destroying your life.
Yes, I understand we all have dreams, goals and visions for the future, but sometimes those fantasies need to be put on hold. Are you just going to keep having abortions because it's not exactly the right time to have a baby? I am a firm believer that everything happens for a reason. Having an abortion because a baby would "destroy your life" is a slap in the face to all those couples who can't conceive. There are other options besides selfishly ending a life that could make someone else so happy. We all have dreams, but we also have the obligation to take responsibility for our actions. So if you're pro-choice, are you fighting for a woman's right to choose or looking for an easy solution to eliminate the responsibilities you created?
Jenn Karlman
journalism freshman
Letter off base
This is in response to Jennie James' article in Friday's Wildcat. It is typical of a liberal to use senseless generalizations, but James' comments were ridiculous. She claims men have no right to be pro-life. Bull! Last time I checked, it does take two people, a man and a woman, to make a baby. I am pro-life because I believe that innocent young lives should not be cut short. I think it is absolutely disgusting for a woman to have multiple abortions - the very idea is morally reprehensible. There are plenty of adults willing and waiting to adopt children in this country. Despite James' comments, we do support sex education because before you can have personal responsibility, you need to be educated.
As for the death penalty, we Republicans support it because we do not want dangerous criminals sitting around in a jail cell that they could potentially break out of and hurt more innocent people. Would James like to tell a family member of a murder victim that their loved one was murdered at the hands of a prison escapee? I didn't think so. Republicans support the death penalty and the pro-life stance because it protects the innocent. Finally, I am sorry you do not have the maturity to at least respect out opinions. We respect yours, we just disagree strongly.
Charles A. Peterson
history freshman
