Middle East more complex
To the editor,
The opinion of Nick Zeckets, "They shoot children, don't they?" ignores reality. When children go in groups among those armed with AK-47's, the situation is deadly serious. In this country, riot police with plastic shields and nightsticks would handle a rock throwing and otherwise unarmed mob.
When the leader, Arafat, of the Palestinian Authority encourages these confrontations, then riot police are not appropriate when some in the group are armed. Armies handle confrontations between countries. The job of soldiers is to use deadly force. Those who knowingly encourage or send children against soldiers in this situation are signing the death warrants of the children as surely as if they were pulling the trigger. Arafat, expecting reactions such as that of Nick Zeckets, may view the deaths of children as an acceptable political tool.
The Middle East situation is complex and tragic, with many injustices against the Palestinian people requiring redress. Ignoring realty does not advance understanding or peace.
Alan Lee
Insurance Officer
Risk Management
Nader a socialist
To the editor,
It seems that every day I open up the Wildcat, I see several articles preaching about the greatness of Ralph Nader. I know that Tucson is the main liberal area of Arizona, but this is ridiculous. Ralph Nader is more than a liberal; Ralph Nader is a socialist. The attack on corporations is an attack on progress in America. Corporations are what have given us the inexpensive and easy to use technology we use today. Microsoft innovated computer use and made it cheap and accessible to everyone. Do we commend them or reward them for the great leap they made in computing? No, we attack them and try to punish them for making a product better than anything else out there. The huge regulations, and in the extreme, the taking over of corporations by the government, is socialism at its finest. Socialism is taking away people's right to do what they want with the money they earn. Socialism rewards sloth and punishes ingenuity and dedication. Socialism punishes people for working hard by giving those who don't work the same things as those who do. These are not the ideals that America was founded on. Socialism is the definition of un-American. And for those who think socialism works, look at China, Cuba and what happened to the USSR. All are experiments in socialism that ruined the host country (communism is a form of socialism). The socialist organizations in this country support Nader because he most closely preaches their socialist ideals. If you think I'm lying, go to http://www.internationalsocialist.org. They are fully backing Nader is his "race" for the presidency.
The second argument about Nader is that he is going to put Bush in the White House because he is taking away Al Gore's liberal votes. Funny, I don't recall anyone asking Ross Perot if he was going to put Clinton in the White House when Perot's parties split the Conservative base in '92 and '96. Nader is not stealing votes, because the liberal votes do not belong to Al Gore by default, he must earn them. I can understand why so many liberals want Nader since Al Gore is painting himself to be a conservative. I have to agree with Melinda Koslow that a Nader vote is dangerous. But not because it may or may not help Bush, but because is vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for socialism. As for Cory Spiller's article on "Liberals for Bush?," he was right, but not in the way he meant.
Anthony W. Nelson
Criminal justice sophomore
Moral questions on homosexuality
To the editor,
I would like to address just one of the many points made in recent letters regarding homosexuality.
Philip Alderink's letter of Oct. 23 began by criticizing the label "homophobic" as being an unfair and vilifying label to attach to those who think homosexuality is a perversion. (This is not all that he said, but it is the point I would like to talk about.) His letter resulted in a hailstorm of responses which, in part, cited cases of persecution against homosexuals and claimed that Mr. Alderink was the one doing the vilifying by calling homosexuality a perversion.
What is not mentioned in any single letter is that people on both sides of the issue have done some vilifying. Homosexuals are sometimes despised by their families, insulted by anonymous authors in bathroom stalls, ridiculed in public, and even threatened, beaten and killed. These are horrible, shameful acts - some of them tragic. They should be condemned by everyone. I think Mr. Alderink would agree. There are also legitimate moral questions surrounding various kinds of sexual practice. Properly understood, these are not questions of whether it is wrong to have certain sexual inclinations (How could it be wrong to simply find in oneself certain kinds of desires?). They are also not really questions about whether it is possible for someone to change their sexual orientation. Rather, they are questions about what sexual desires ought to be considered healthy, and about when and how it is appropriate to engage in sexual activity. For some people it is painful even to raise these questions. We disagree on the answers. But I hope we can see that they are reasonable questions to ask. At the very least, we need not attribute fear and hatred to everyone who asks them, nor to everyone who answers them in a certain way. The fact that some people are motivated by fear and hatred to commit vicious acts against homosexuals - and the fact that many who disapprove of homosexual practice neither share these motives nor commit these acts - is why it is insulting and misleading to label all people who hold this particular moral view as homophobes.
Lee Shepski
Philosophy graduate student
