Letters to the editor

The homeless must be helped, not punished

I was appalled to read the "Homelessness must be dealt with, not supported" letter to the editor (Dec. 6). There are so many things wrong with it that it is difficult for me to just address a few. The words used to describe this population of people made me sick. It seems awful to me to imply that the homeless are indecent disgusting rats. What gives anyone the right to decide who is better than someone else?

Reinstating vagrancy is not how the plight of the homeless should be resolved. How is this word not mean/insensitive when the author is using it in this manner? If the law enforced vagrancy, hundreds of homeless people would be fined or put in jail. How is this productive? I make no claims of knowing how to solve this problem; I don't think that it will even be resolved in my lifetime. I do know that part of the solution will be to help them; enforcing vagrancy is only punishing them, which they do not deserve.

Most of all, this letter makes me sad. It makes me sad to realize that there are people in this country who have lost their compassion for the fellow members of their community.

-- Julie Hart

Junior, general studies:

Public Health

Now you know, so

don't go

In the Dec. 6 issue of The Daily, Christina Siderius wrote about Earl's and its "porn night" on Wednesdays ("No complaints' excuse stops here). She commented that "...pornography as expression is a purposeful choice." You too can make a purposeful choice: don't go. No one is forcing anyone to stay and watch pornography on the TV. Not everyone at Earl's watches the pornography for sexual reasons. Lots of people out there watch pornography simply for its humorous value, even women. If someone walks in and sees porn on the TVs, they can choose to leave or stay and enjoy themselves.

Siderius claims that some group made a "declaration to the U.S. Senate Committee of Commerce" that porn is more addictive than crack cocaine. If that's true, and porn is bad, then why is cocaine illegal and porn isn't? Earl's is doing nothing wrong. As the doorman stated twice, "We've had no complaints."

Lastly, there is a study that can prove that pornography has benefits. Anyone who has masturbated to porn because his or her imagination, magazine and/or partner wouldn't suffice would say it's a benefit.

-- Randy Poplaski

Senior, economics

Changes to bill unnecessary

It's hardly "unfortunate" that the bill to aid immigrant students attending the UW also helps international students (in response to staff editorial "Immigrant-aid loophole unfortunate," Dec. 6). The Daily has previously run articles documenting the unfortunate decline of international students at the UW. So it seems to me that HB 1079, which was passed almost unanimously by our state's Legislature, kills two birds with one stone.

It is shortsighted to say that this law should be changed in the upcoming session due to the fact that 36 international students at the UW are getting a tuition break as a result of it. The vast majority of the immigrants benefiting from the law are currently attending community colleges and they are undoubtedly aware of the possibility of transferring here.

There was broad consensus in Olympia on this issue. Every state senator, including Governor-Elect Dino Rossi, voted yes. To reopen it now would mean unnecessarily toying with the futures of immigrant students.

-- Aaron Schwitters

Junior, political science