Arizona Daily Wildcat
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Donors' families should be paid for organs
In regard to Mr. Undis' letter, "Simple Solution for problem of organ shortage," may I propose an even simpler solution: Pay for organs donated.
Last I read, a heart transplant cost in excess of $100,000. This money is being used to pay for doctors, hospitals and drug treatment. About the only thing free in the whole procedure was the heart! Why?
Now before everyone begins to conjure up visions of organ auctions and the like, let me say that nothing of the sort need be started. The same organizational system that allocates/controls organ donations around the country can simply set a dollar amount to be given the estate of the organ donator, say $5,000 for a heart.
If receiving a check for the "gift of life" is insulting to the donor or the donor's family, let them refuse the money or donate it to their favorite charity.
I'm betting a little hard cash will produce more results than endless appeals to the "better angels of our nature."
computer science employee
Bush didn't lie about status of Iraqi weapons
OK, I am sick of hearing this whole "people used the wrong set of morals" crap. The entire basis for their argument was that they voted on gay and abortion issues while ignoring the president lying. If the agency whose sole purpose of existence is to get information tells you one thing, your allies tell you the same thing, and history itself has shown that it was true 10 years ago, how is it lying to say the same thing? Even if we ignore the fact that 380 tons of explosives went missing right before the invasion, is it really lying to the whole country when you tell them something that everyone, including yourself, believes to be true? Is it wrong to enforce resolutions? I suppose doing what you say you're going to do is a wrong thing. Stop it with the "Bush lied, 10,000 died" crap. He didn't lie, he said what everyone believed to be true, and what all the evidence pointed to being true.
computer engineering freshman
Abortion legal despite Unborn Victims Act
Lauren Peckler showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the law in her column Wednesday about abortion. While the murders of Laci and Conner Peterson may have generated support for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, there is no direct connection between the act, Scott Peterson's trial and the legality of abortion.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would have no effect on crimes governed by state law, such as the murders of Laci and Conner. The law would only apply in cases of federal crimes where a fetus was harmed. The vast majority of violent crimes fall under state jurisdiction, and this law would not apply. In California, the death of Laci Peterson's fetus was considered a crime under a California law that was already in existence.
The act does nothing to change the legality of abortion because the federal and state governments clearly cannot outlaw the practice under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Until the Court reverses its own opinion on the matter, or the U.S. Constitution is amended, abortion will always be legal in every state. Congress and Bush can rewrite the law in any way they like to recognize a fetus as a person, but this has no effect on how the justices view the Constitution.
computer engineering sophomore
Focus on eliminating racism, not on 'diversity'
In Ms. Bonicillo's Monday column, she argues that we should be outraged by the fact that "whites [hold] two-thirds of the positions of the instructional faculty" at UA. She is absolutely right.
After all, since the demographics of the people most qualified for jobs at UA will obviously reflect the demographics of the Tucson population, we should be righteously outraged if even a single percentage of a given race is "inaccurately represented" with fewer than the "deserved" number of faculty positions.
And, as Ms. Bonicillo suggests, it is not appropriate for under 67 percent of the instructors to be white - after all, 70.2 percent should be in order to accurately reflect Tucson's 2000 U.S. Census data. What an outrage! In fact, it might even show that the affirmative action pressure group has gained too much power, and has scared interviewers into accepting minorities over qualified whites just so they aren't accused of racism.
Allow me to step out of the ridiculous, racially-minded affirmative action mentality for a moment. What does this show - that the whites should rise up against their minority oppressors? Or, more reasonably, that we should stop focusing on the percentages of different races hired, and turn our focus to actual instances of less-qualified people being selected based on their race?
Whether the perpetrators are white supremacists or affirmative action proponents, focusing on race for any reason whatever is racist.
Stop the constant whine about "diversity" and talk about racism - but only when someone inferior is selected as reward for their skin color.
electrical engineering senior
president, student objectivist society at UA