Recognize the 'message' in professor's confession

Thank you for printing that story on professor Bechtel. I can only hope that more people than I would assume are able to read it with an open mind. My fear is that many people will not be able to move their minds past the killing in order to understand the point in all of it. On the other hand, one cannot help but think about the student who was killed and about his family. But there are positives in every situation, no matter how much we might refuse to accept that, and I hope that the family of the victim was able to find some aspect of their own situation that they could learn from, just as professor Bechtel was able to find some deeper lesson in his experience.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where hundreds of thousands of people die every day. At what point do we realize that it might be more beneficial for us and for all of humanity to step outside of the box, so to speak, and attempt to assimilate and understand the broader message, rather than continuing to indulge ourselves within a more superficial context? How can our world ever change if we simply allow ourselves to stop at the surface and form our judgments and understanding from that point? That can only lead to responses that do not equate to resolution, but rather to doing what we think will "fix the problem" when, in reality, the problem is only getting worse. This translates to every aspect of the human reality, including politics and war. But if we are to focus on professor Bechtel's situation, then I think it is important for us to recognize that thousands of people in this country, especially young people, are committing suicide or turning to gangs, etc. because of the lack of acceptance and understanding that they have experienced on some level.

We are only human, and humans, like most other living organisms, require love and acceptance in order to flourish. How can we ever expect ideal conditions on this planet if we are not able to create this acceptance? Hopefully, people will be able to place this man's experience in the greater context and learn what there is to learn from it. Everything happens for a reason.

Raja Antoine
psychology senior

Selling organs would attract potential donors

In response to Mark Dugan's letter Friday, "Commodifying organs not the answer," I again beg to differ. Commodification, or as I would refer to it, incentivization, is exactly the answer.

Mr. Dugan reads my letter, but responds in an emotional manner - perhaps good for a future physician, but bad for patients on organ donation lists.

Mr. Dugan states that organ donation should remain "one of the last few acts of altruism." Again, I ask, "Why?" In the hypothetical $100,000 heart transplant operation I mentioned, there are no free surgeries, no free hospital stays, and no free drug regimens. I'm all for altruism - how about the rest of the folks in this process?

Mr. Dugan talks about an "ethical nightmare" for physicians if organs have a dollar amount attached to them. Here is a real nightmare to consider: "You have three patients and one organ to implant. Odds are that the two patients you elect not to receive the transplant will die before another organ is found." Hide behind all the established protocols for ranking recipients you want - people will die based on your decision.

As I stated in my first letter, no direct "bidding" for organs need be or should be conducted, no change of the current procedures for deciding who receives any organ donation need be made, no exploitation of the "poor."

A price per organ is set high enough to attract increased donations. When you have enough organs being donated to meet your needs, you've reached the appropriate incentive level for the organ in question - this also addresses Mr. Dugan's concern over the relative value of organs. If any laws need to be modified to permit this, fine. Laws are modified all the time.

Finally, Mr. Dugan states that it is important that the "organs they receive be motivated by kindness." How is it an act of kindness to watch a patient slip from this world due to an anachronistic system of organ donation and distribution?

John Luiten
computer science employee

Bechtel a murderer, not a tragic hero

After reading the article about confessed murderer professor Robert Bechtel, I'm appalled this man is being regarded as almost a hero who has survived some tragedy. Are we not noticing that he actually took another man's life? I understand that being bullied can cause a cruel and unhappy existence, but being bullied in no way justifies murder. I truly hope he and his daughter are not making any profit off of the book or movie deal they are creating. A quote from a psychology student says that it is amazing to see what professor Bechtel has done with his life. Lucky for him, he has had the opportunity to proceed with his life after murdering another human being. Maybe all murderers are insane. The average jail time for murder, including manslaughter, is 265 months - that's 22 years. Ironically, the man professor Bechtel murdered was only alive for that many years.

Erica Stevenson
family studies senior

Professor had other options besides murder

Wow, I am really shocked that some people feel sorry for Robert Bechtel, a UA professor who shot and killed someone while an undergraduate in Pennsylvania.

Let's review: He was pushed around at school, couldn't deal with it any longer, went home for Christmas where he bought two guns with the intention of shooting up the whole place, returned to school, gunned someone down in cold blood and turned himself in to police. Does that sound like premeditated murder to anyone else? Are we to believe that killing was his only option? I am not terribly creative, and I haven't given this much thought, but how about a few alternatives. How about switching schools, quitting school, talking to the authorities at school, getting a different RA job, quitting his job, talking to the police or talking to his parents?

Bechtel got out of taking responsibility for the slaying by reason of insanity. He spent nearly five years in a hospital for the criminally insane, then was released because he taught other patients math, reading and geography?! Great.

The message we are supposed to get out of all this is that bullying is bad. Granted, but how about "killing is bad?" Paula Spicerkuhn, a UA student, says, "It seems like he's moved past it. People can learn a lot from him." Well, of course he moved past it - he's criminally insane, according to the article. Further, what is it we can learn from him? How to successfully kill people who are mean to you and get away with it? Deanna Ortiz, another student, said, "In a way we are all murderers - we kill people with our words and actions by gossiping and such." Is that a joke? This article is about someone who really killed another person, not a fable with a cute moral about kindness.

Instead of employing insane murderers and supporting their coming forward with their story, as UA President Peter Likins has done, I suggest Bechtel be fired. I am certainly glad I am not enrolled in a class he is teaching, I would surely take a "W" rather than a grade from a murderer. I will never take a class from him. Am I the only one who sees the irony in his teaching a class on the "Psychology of Happiness?"

In addition, let's not forget that he killed somebody. In the United States, criminals are not allowed to profit from their crimes. I propose that if he does secure the book deal he is after that people definitely not buy it. I also recommend that people eschew viewing the documentary being made about the murder he committed.

Lasha Harlan
junior majoring in English

Bush lied about support for Iraqi WMD theory

Anthony Ciaravella rewrites history in his letter to the editor Thursday, when he says that George W. Bush did not lie about Iraqi weapons.

Ciarvella is correct that when George W. Bush prepared Americans for the invasion of Iraq: He honestly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. However, during this period Bush and his aides repeatedly told America that the United States had fresh, actionable intelligence to support their case. We now know that was a lie.

If Bush had not lied, then the public debate about whether to invade Iraq could have considered as a possibility the scenario that turned out to be correct: that Saddam was only pretending to have weapons so as to keep his neighbors from invading. Then we might not have become stuck in this unnecessary quagmire that threatens our national security.

Leonard Wayne
graduate student, optical sciences (distance-learning option)

Naqvi column ridiculous, shows lack of research

I am shocked that the Arizona Daily Wildcat would even consider printing a column as ridiculous as Moe Naqvi's Friday attack on ASUA SafeRide. Mr. Naqvi's column showed a complete lack of research and fact, instead launching into a series of ludicrous ideas that would supposedly "improve" one of the University of Arizona's most popular student services.

First, ASUA SafeRide did not begin in 1994, but rather in 1981 as the ASUA Escort Service (the name was changed to ASUA Safe Ride in 2001). 2005 begins our 24th year of service to the university and Tucson communities.

Second, the notion that ASUA SafeRide drivers may have a "hidden agenda to hunt down unsuspecting UA students and run them over" is absurd. Our service maintains a high standard of safety for our drivers, and our office typically receives very few complaints about unsafe driving per year.

Third, Mr. Naqvi's comments on ASUA SafeRide's policy of only transporting groups of two or less show a complete lack of research. ASUA SafeRide will transport groups of larger than two if the individuals are going to different locations. If the individuals are all going to the same location, it is encouraged that they walk together or find another method of transportation. One could make the argument that a group of 10 female students is not safe (a group of 20 male students could attack them), but we must concentrate our service on the groups that are likely to be in the most danger. Due to the size of our vehicles and the huge demand for our service, we draw the line at two persons per group.

Fourth, ASUA SafeRide's policy of not allowing intoxicated persons in our vehicles was instituted to comply with the Arizona Board of Regents policy that no persons under the influence may be in any university vehicle at any time. Next time Mr. Naqvi wants to complain about our inability to transport intoxicated individuals, I suggest he contact UA Risk Management, the board of regents or the governor's office.

ASUA SafeRide has a long tradition of providing safe, quality transportation to students, faculty and staff.

Joshua H. Wright
director, ASUA SafeRide, psychology and religious studies senior

Bill of Rights not source of church/state separation

Ever since election night there have been numerous letters to the editor printed on this page regarding the appropriate relationship between religion and government. Many of these letters have based their arguments around the First Amendment and the misconception surrounding the phase "the separation between church and state." Wildcat columnist Lauren Peckler probably best demonstrates this by ignorantly quoting in her column Wednesday, "Well, I guess that why's there's that little phrase in the Bill of Rights that says 'separation of church and state.'" Well Ms. Peckler, I have read the Bill of Rights and I still have not been able to find that phrase yet.

The actual origin of the phrase "separation between church and state" comes from Thomas Jefferson but was made famous during the 1947 Supreme Court case Everson v. Board of Education. The question brought before the Supreme Court was whether a New Jersey statue that allowed for reimbursement to families for bus expenses to Catholic schools was in violation of the First Amendment. In the majority opinion upholding the appellate courts' decision that the statue was not in violation, Justice Hugo L. Black quoted Jefferson by writing, "the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State."

It seems ironic that a phrase that is used so often by strict separatists was actually written by a man who believed that our unalienable rights were endowed by the creator and was then cited in an opinion to uphold a statute that was challenged for violating the Establishment Clause. So please in the future when the debate returns to the proper relationship between religion and government and one refers to the separation between church and state, remember the context it originated from and do not list the Bill of Rights as its source.

Ryan Calkins
UA alumnus