Vote for ideals, not fears
To the editor,
In response to Sheila Bapat's commentary on the 2000 election campaign in the Sept. 25 Wildcat, each election progressives are told, "vote for the Democrat or the Republican will win," and everything will be worse. But after each election cycle the Democratic mainstream slips further under the control of corporate money and more people are turned-off from unrepresentative electoral politics.
But like the "mainstream media" she criticizes, Bapat is missing the real story. If Al Gore is for the "working man" and "against the powerful interests," listen carefully when Gore launches into his current populist rhetoric on healthcare or education. The first item on his list is always paying down the national debt. Combine this Democratic platform plank with Gore's pledge to increase military spending by $100 billion dollars, and guess what? No matter what the size of any potential budget surplus may be, there will be no more money for healthcare, education or the environment.
Child poverty, the number of working families without health care, prison populations, working families without health care and economic inequality will all increase under Gore as they have under Clinton. This is why Gore's populist rhetoric rings false because everyone knows that whatever progressive elements remain in the Democratic party have been pushed aside for the past eight years by the demands of its corporate sponsors. If Gore is elected the same corporate priorities will win again. Gore is as tied to "big oil" as Bush and Cheney, just ask the U'wa people in Colombia. As far as taking on the "big drug companies," remember that Gore threatened South Africa with sanctions if they tried to temporarily buy or manufacture cheaper generic HIV drugs to stem their AIDS epidemic. This policy was overturned after vigorous protests from AIDS activists, including the Green Party and Ralph Nader. But even more telling is the large number of Gore's personal advisors and fundraisers who work or lobby for major drug companies and their trade associations.
As Bapat notes, "the best way to figure out what kind of candidate you have is to figure out who his key supporters are." The independent politics of the Green Party's Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke have rejected all corporate money. As their campaign motto indicates, they can make a credible claim to be the party of "We the People," not the monied interests. Is this "extremist?" As Ralph Nader often says, vote for you ideals, your principles and your conscience, not your fears.
John Shaw
History graduate student
Club promotes good
To the editor,
I was stunned reading Monday's letter by Stephen Emerson, who called the newly formed club, Students Against the Death Penalty, "a shame to the University of Arizona." Since when is a club that is promoting the sanctity of life, and whose beliefs are shared by, according to the latest polls, at least a third of the country's citizens, a "shame?" Stephen Emerson - and anybody else for that matter - of course have the right to disagree with what the Students Against the Death Penalty are saying, but he should at the very least respect their right to say it, and the sincerity of its members. On the other hand, if the university harbored a group whose members spewed hatred like that expressed by Stephen Emerson, then it should indeed be ashamed.
Andreas Ekholm
Planetary sciences graduate student
Boy scouts above reproach
To the editor,
On my honor:
I'll do my best, to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the scout law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.
This is the oath of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) and some of the principles upon which the organization was founded. The BSA teaches boys and young men to be good leaders, to serve their community, to be kind and render service to those in need, to keep themselves in good physical condition, to be true to their morals and to be conscientious of their actions.
What are the standards of the BSA? Well, the relevant ones are: First, based upon the scout oath, there is a belief in God. This entails a respect for what God's morals are.
Second, based upon this belief is the standard that morality is determined by God. Now as it concerns this discussion it is important to note that homosexuality is considered immoral by God - in almost every established religion (except of course those that change their beliefs from time to time, which shows that they certainly aren't guided by God).
So, does the BSA discriminate? No, of course not. Would it make sense for them to place as roll models those that don't emulate the values and standards of scouting? Certainly not, they would be hypocrites.
Where is the discrimination? It's found in the City Council and in Cory. We have seen this time and time again, that people often have blatent disregard for the beliefs of others. In the decision of the City Council, the City crossed the line of separtation of church and state; how? Because they used the power of government to bully or push a certain moral standard-namely the acceptance of homosexuality as being morally acceptable. Separation of church and state was intended to guarantee people the freedom to practice their morals without the coersion of the government; the city council has crossed this line. They are taking a stance against the moral foundation of the BSA and using their governmental powers in this fight.
I publicly reprimend the city council for this and call upon everyone who cares about their freedom, to find-out who on the council is responsible for this intrusion and see that they are not reelected, why?
Because anyone capable of crossing the line on this matter is capable of crossing it again in much worse ways.
As for Cory and those who think like him...the moral fire has been burning in the firepit for millenia. If you choose to step into the fire, don't blame those who built it of trying to burn you.
Jason Knight Belnap
Graduate Assistant in Teaching
Department of Mathematics
Column narrow-minded
To the editor,
Cory Spiller's diatribe on the Boy Scouts in your Sept. 27 edition was really a pathetic display of hate and venom - the tenor of which I've not seen for some time in your newspaper. Hopefully, the majority of students on this campus don't have this kind of violent anger building up inside them - especially towards such a benign group as the Boy Scouts. How far have we come as a society when comments like Mr. Spiller's are taken seriously? I can only hope your readers are not falling for the facade of tolerance and open-mindedness that Mr. Spiller claims for himself, while underneath he seems to be seething with hate and bigotry and intolerance. And to what target - a group of men and boys who believe in good citizenship, respect for the outdoors, and the virtues of honesty, integrity, loyalty, etc. It's obvious to me that Mr. Spiller is not acquainted with any Boy Scout or Leader who takes his membership seriously. It's also obvious he knows nothing about the Boy Scout principles - only what he reads in the papers. Readers - take another look at the words Mr. Spiller used to describe this organization - "intolerant," "manipulators," "ignorant," "bigoted," "narrow-minded" - I could go on and on. Now think for a moment about what kind of people you and I should be worrying about - those on the side of the Boy Scouts - or those in the camp of Mr. Spiller?
Jeffrey West
Financial Services Office
Staff
Conclusions out of line
To the editor,
I am writing in response to Cory Spiller's commentary "Fascists in out Midst" (Wed, Sept. 27). He looks at one aspect of the Boy Scouts and draws appalling conclusions. While I do not support the Scouts' policy banning gay scoutmasters (a policy which does not mention the scouts, themselves), I believe I have greatly benefited from my own experiences as a Boy Scout. The Boy Scouts is an organization founded to teach young men how to be productive, responsible members of society. In my 10+ years as a scout, nowhere did I see signs that the organization is a "narrow-minded, bigoted boot camp for the soon to be voting members of the ultra-right." I experienced a nurturing community that taught me how to work cooperatively. What's more is that I consider myself to be fairly liberal.
It's unfair to judge an entire organization by a single policy. I agree that the ban on homosexual scoutmasters is extreme, but there are many aspects of the Boy Scouts that are worthy of merit. I refuse to believe that the messages of environmental awareness and cultural tolerance I learned while in the Scouts were the battle cries of an organization dedicated to "recruit(ing) new members of the Conservative gun-toting right." The Scouts, like everything else in this Universe, are not perfect, but please don't tear down a useful and respected building because of one broken window.
Timothy Bowers
Physics/astronomy senior
Intolerance demonstrated
To the editor,
After reading "Fascists in our midst," I need to comment on the Boy Scouts of America story. First of all, the Constitution was drawn up to protect everyone's rights, but especially those who are part of the minority or who hold unpopular views. In this particular case, the minority is the Boy Scouts. Spiller is right in saying that the Boy Scouts' right to teach and uphold their own set of values and morals is protected by the Constitution. But when he criticizes the public organization for teaching what they believe in and then labelling their values as "ultra-conservative crap," Spiller reveals that he is in fact a badly disguised bigot himself. He is really saying their non-mainstream values have no place in our "open and tolerant" society. By criticizing the Boy Scouts' adherence to a value system opposite to his own, Spiller exposes his true fault of intolerance. So knowing how vulnerable and unpopular Boy Scouts has become in these past couple of days, I have to rebuke Spiller for saying, "Our nation's Constitution allows for bigoted organizations." From my point of view, the Constitution is what protects us from individuals like Spiller - those who claim to be tolerant but who are really intolerant themselves.
Joyce Chu
Family studies senior
Scouts mischaracterized
To the editor,
After reading Cory Spiller's tongue-lashing of the Boy Scouts, I wish it to be known that I was rather confused. After my eight years in the scouting program, it surprised me that I had been a part of a "fascist, paramilitary organization." It seemed to me that while in the program, I had been taught tolerance and compassion for those that were different from me. True, as Scouts we were "forced to conform," as your overbearing writer put it. In fact, the Scouting laws included such military concepts as kindness, courtesy and interestingly enough, reverence.
After reading the column on Wednesday, it would seem that I was lucky to escape with my dignity from the program, as I am an agnostic; instead, I was supported in my decision and met some of my best friends in Scouting. While we did engage in service projects, outdoor activities and family-inclusive gatherings, it must be eluding my memory that we were sat down and instructed to "shoot guns and exclude our gay peers."
The reason behind excluding homosexuals from the private arena of the Scouts is a question of practicality. The only way to make pubescent young males focus on things like sound judgment and personal safety is to create a sexually neutral environment. Boy Scouts are required to pay attention to what is at hand in order to stay "mentally awake," and even for the most disciplined of Scouts (or any teenagers for that matter), this would be difficult were there any hint of sexual energy present. While homosexuality is frowned upon by the organization's moral code, individual Scouting units do not support any kind of hate, nor are these views impressed upon Scouts.
As a young scout, I was taught very simply to accept people for who they are, and to avoid passing judgment on anyone. It is simply to maintain efficiency that proclaimed homosexuals are not encouraged into the program.
As for your column, it seems reasonable to ask that you chase after somebody that commits more serious crimes than attempting to teach millions of America's youth how to survive in life and to be moral, reverent people.
Also, once you find the next target for your political accusations, perhaps it could be done in a more informed manner. I am offended to have to endure such slander alongside the finest group of individuals I have had the privilege of associating with.
Steve Bitter,
Undeclared freshman
Eagle Scout
