LGBTQQA ‘more than just letters’

I’m quite confused by the point Alyson Hill is trying to make in her article, “”Stop the movement – I want to get off”” (yesterday), if there is one at all. I think Hill has fallen victim to the exact system those of us in the pride movement, gay or straight, are trying to combat. Our issues are more than just about labels, whether they are what acronym our community and movement embraces, or how to address the myriad of issues we are faced with everyday. What we work to reverse everyday is the fact that LGBTQQA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning and ally) is more than just letters, more than just words. It stands for the oppression we are faced with everyday by the closed-mindedness of a population that is attempting to regulate affection and self-identity and who stand for four letters much worse than any combination of letters in the alphabet: HATE. LGBTQQA stands for the progress that we are making to create a more inclusive society, through stewards of service like Pride Alliance and the UA’s LGBTQ Affairs. Hill’s time and the Wildcat’s space would have been better spent asking how we can continue to move forward as a society to erase hate and inequality rather than question technicalities of an acronym.

David Martinez III
secondary education senior

Our spoiled democracy

On Sunday Ralph Nader announced his decision to run for president and is awaiting the nomination of the Green Party.

Immediately the Democratic Party and others announced their disapproval. It is apparent that Democrats, and those who vote for them, believe that Nader alone caused the losses in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, especially in relation to the Florida fiasco. Unfortunately, several factors led to these losses and that opinion is still yet to be fact. What is not talked about by politicians or voters regarding Nader, or any other alternative-party candidates running for office, is democracy. We have forgotten what democracy means and why it must be upheld and improved. Dirty political bigotry has pushed it to the background. We call Nader a “”spoiler”” and forget that the votes he received were earned, not taken. If anything, the people who voted for him are “”spoilers”” (including myself). But, is it possible that people who vote for the candidate that best represents them have done something wrong? Of course not, this is a republic! Do we not also deserve representation? My suggestion to the two major parties is to put party exclusion into firm policy. Sure, they have crafted several anti-democratic measures to keep alternative parties off the ballot already, but let’s stop the charade. The rhetoric and attitude is there, but let’s see some action! Instead of a slander campaign, let’s begin to craft legislation that forcibly excludes people from voting for other parties. This would stop all possibility of “”spoilers”” and the goal of the two-party monopoly would be accomplished. Or, we could enliven our democracy and allow all political ideals to compete and be represented without legal obstacles or political defamation. It’s up to us.

Brian Hennigan
history senior

Police protect government, not innocent

I want to clear up a little misconception that seems to be perpetuated in today’s society, as exemplified by Mr. Jason Lewis in his letter to the editor regarding the Northern Illinois University shooting (“”‘UA ready to handle disaster of NIU scale?’ “” 2/19). He states, “”Police officials are supposed to be trained individuals protecting the innocent and attacking the perpetrator.””

Excuse me for being the one to break the news, but the police are not here to protect the innocent (unless, of course, you consider the government to be innocent). The primary purpose of the police force is to protect the government and its interests before protecting the interests of the private citizen. Enough court cases throughout the country have proven this point.

Laura Latimer
pharmacy Ph.D. candidate

George Washington must be rolling in his grave

This is a response to Garrett Hall’s letter “”‘How about this one: terrorists will kill you’ “” (yesterday). Mr. Hall is willing to sacrifice his personal privacy for protection against terrorists? Fine. When one realizes how futile wiretapping is, however, the prospect of wiretapping American citizens becomes absurd. As any method of surveillance becomes broader, methods of surpassing that surveillance become much more advanced. There currently exists methods to transfer data over the Internet far more secure and anonymous than proxies. These methods are easy and free to use and are already suspected of being used by terrorists. So why then is the government planning to allow wiretapping of American citizens? It is a small step for all terrorists to learn to use more secure communication methods – once that happens, the government’s power to spy on American citizens will still be in place, but won’t serve any beneficial purpose. But far more important – while our government may not abuse the powers it is given now, the more powerful a government becomes the more damage any corruption in it will be able to cause. I am in no rush to give our government powers which may someday be abused against any American. History has shown time and time again that even an honest and great nation can fall into corruption within a generation when too much power and secrecy is given to its rulers.

America was founded (and thrived) on the prospect of freedom. Instead of arbitrary nobles deciding on the rules, the power of the government was meant to be in the hands of the citizens. Elected officials were not meant to rule us – they were meant to represent us. Once the government has power to hide information and spy without warrant and without notice on its citizens, we will have lost that dream. The issue to me is more than simply not wanting someone to have the authority and power to secretly listen in on my conversations, though that is certainly something I disdain. It’s about preserving the dignity and honor of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have died to protect our freedoms, and to preserve the dreams on which this country became great.

David Wampler
senior majoring in wildlife, watershed and rangeland resources