Rejecting Che's real ideals
Claire Harlin paints the image of Ernesto "Che" Guevara as slightly distasteful, a passé icon of a dead revolution sported by American youngsters who don't understand their own hypocrisy ("Cuba without the Che brand," Jan. 30). But allowing Guevara's head to silently live on the chests of our peers is an insult to the millions of people lashed by his brutal legacy.
Guevara's diaries document a sickening bloodlust. His suppression of dissent was quick, fierce and without trial. He tortured and murdered with a pleasure reminiscent of a serial killer. He advocated his own brand of guerilla tactics in South America and Africa, which, if not for his timely demise, would have likely caused the death of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people.
No, "Che" shirts are more than a bad fashion statement: His savage "revolution" turned an admittedly flawed Cuba into a Stalinist regime which rejects the ideas of "freedom" and "self-expression" in favor of suppression and servitude. I doubt Harlin would call on us to patiently wait for those who sport swastikas to realize that they are 60 years behind the times.
Beginning today, I will tell everyone I see with a "Che" shirt, a Mao purse or a Stalinist button the truth: These communists are responsible for the worst atrocities of the 20th century. These three men caused the death of at least 60 million people, and the current suppression of millions more. Thank you, Ms. Harlin: Your call to let these symbols silently die has driven me to speak out. Everyone should know the suffering that these symbols represent, and summarily reject them and their ideals.
Michael McCoy Electrical engineering senior January 30, 2007
Life trumps investment returns
Grant Manning's "Sudan divestment bad legislation" on Jan. 30 is a clear and concise argument stating that legislation to the aim of any social goals, including stopping genocide, is unfair to people who wish to profit from commerce even when that commerce supports a government committing genocide. Those directly responsible are plainly in sight, but they cannot be stopped. Political pressure and peacekeeping forces have accomplished nothing. Military action is advocated by some, but what forces would take this action?
Yes, it is Sudan's morally bankrupt government and war criminals that are directly responsible for perpetrating this genocide, but you are indirectly responsible. The morality of divestment is not grey, but black and white. Individual divestment has no effect in a world where you cannot make people care. Being indirectly responsible is still being responsible.
The chain of responsibility is clear, and indirect responsibility falls on the United Nations, the United States, the State of Texas, the University of Texas Investment Company and all investors in foreign corporations that operate in Sudan. Why?
Genocide isn't cheap, and the money comes from our pockets. The money invested in companies supporting Sudan is money invested in genocide. UTIMCO is not nearly as sizeable a goal in the divestment campaign as the state of Texas, and if I had the time I would be lobbying the Board of Regents, as several universities have already passed divestment by-laws.
I can ignore your ignorance about the specifications of these bills, but it's clear if you know the history behind the campaign that this legislation is not a total divestment of all foreign companies similar to the sanctions already imposed by the U.S. government preventing all U.S. companies from operating there. S.B. 247 and H.B. 667 are "targeted divestment" legislation. Targeted divestment is restricted to companies that would not affect the civilian population of Sudan or U.S. interests. More than 85 percent of Sudan's income is used by the military, and foreign investment brings in more money than any other source.
Divestment already has a precedent, and has been used all over the world by governments and universities to take stances on social issues. Sanctions are much harsher and even more common. Divestment campaigns were called the final blow that peacefully brought down the apartheid regime in South Africa in the early 1990s, after the pressure of world opinion and attacks by African nationalist groups.
Government ultimately is a social expenditure, and we all have a right to be activists and stand up for what we think is right. If we aren't allowed to decide how to spend the money the government taxes from us, that is taxation without representation. People have a right to invest in genocide, but the government does not. You can't make people care, but you can make your government act.
At least you state that life is more important than small investments.
Colin Lowenberg Electrical engineering senior January 30, 2007
Genocide not a 'social idea'
The author of Tuesday's column "Sudan divestment bad legislation" misunderstands the complexity of the legislation and the dire situation in Darfur. While he recognizes that action must be taken to stop the genocide, he cops out behind a slippery-slope argument.
Equating the murder of 450,000 innocent people to "social ideas" such as tobacco and environmental agendas is ridiculous. Divestment is a unique tool for use in the foreign policy arena, and therefore would be difficult to use in these and other "social ideas." When did the mass murder of a people become simply just a "social idea," anyway?
To be fair, we should probably discuss the grave circumstances of this crisis that merits divestment. Never in our nation's past have the State Department and the president named an on-going genocide as the atrocities continue. Certain tools of the state or national policy could be abused to promote "social ideas," but if we should use the power of divestment on something, shouldn't it be to stop senseless murder?
Legislation of this breed was instrumental in pressuring South Africa to end apartheid, and if western nations and other states follow this necessary lead, companies contributing to Sudan will have to change their practices, or they will quickly find themselves without investors.
There is no reason to consider this legislation bad. Let's stand up as Texans and make a statement the whole world will hear.
Leran Minc Government and history junior January 30, 2007
Murder belongs on front page
In response to Jessica Chang's Firing Line on Jan. 30: The Pitonyak case is exactly the type of story the Texan should devote its time and headlines to. A brutal murder only a stones throw away from campus is a cause of concern for the entire University community.
The interplay of money, drugs, sex and alcohol are issues that college students at large, and Texas students in particular, are confronted with on a daily basis. The Pitonyak case should serve as a startling reminder of the consequences of losing sight of our purpose here at UT, a reminder to parents to stay involved with their children's lives, a reminder to watch out for our friends, to watch out for ourselves.
Please get off your high horse. This is a University paper that has a responsibility to report University issues. If you want to read about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, stop looking between the Sudoku and the crossword puzzle and pick up a copy of The New York Times.
Niket Desai UT alum January 30, 2007
Living isn't a trivial matter
Those students who care enough to be aware of their surroundings - of the politics, sciences, economics and wars that make this country tick - picked up a Daily Texan paper Tuesday and read of Colton Pitonyak and Jennifer Cave. As I read the description of Cave's murder, I felt myself sicken, saddened. I felt compassion for Cave, for her family, and hatred for her murderer. I felt grateful for my family and friends. I felt grateful for breath and life.
A trivial tale of a druggie-murderer? Perhaps so, in the eyes of one so skewed in perceptions of what is important in this world as to think that the new curriculum of a university from which they are about to graduate and leave is so vastly more important than the brutal loss of life suffered by Jennifer Cave.
To those who may share the outrageous sentiment that it is a waste of time, paper and breath to draw public attention to a horrendous crime committed in our midst and the justice brought upon the perpetrator, I ask you this: What the hell good is a University without its students? What good is new curriculum if you do not survive to study it? What good is an upcoming presidential election without the ability to vote in it?
I'm not saying that the sky is falling, nor am I saying that we are all in danger of being killed or mutilated. I am, however, saying that it truly saddens me that my fellow students could perhaps be the very same who think that a single girl's life and the fate of her murderer are trivial matters, of no use to the public, compared to which books and methods will be next adopted by the University. Just one life, right? It's easy to be so smug when that life isn't yours.
To be an individual well-informed of our nation's latest events, of our governmental leaders' newest doomed policies, of our never-ending political bickering and bantering, is very easy. Turn on CNN or the radio, grab The Austin-American Statesman: Open your eyes. I'm grateful to live in such an informed community as I find here in Austin. But I mourn the day there is a murder in our midst, a murderer found and brought to justice and I pick up the paper only to read about how I should be hearing about the possible consequences of proposed curriculum changes at UT.
Without the avid protection and conservation of life in our society, in any society, there is no society. Now how can life be a trivial matter?
Bethany Perkins English senior January 30, 2007
One crime takes two lives
So Andrey Bredstein's solution to "murder" is to cultivate an entire society of cold-blooded killers (Firing Line, Jan. 29)? What a fool. His "solution" amounts to little more than state-sanctioned lynching.
Revenge is not the purview of a civilized society. Revenge offers only a short term gratification to the ego at best - you still have to live with the misery of loss, and added to that, a loss of soul and humanity. Only justice meted out with temperance and prudence offers restoration to all involved.
Encouraging self-cultivation through insight meditation would offer individuals an opportunity for reform - but since our system here is geared toward punishment instead of reform, two lives wind up wasted rather than just one in our "criminal justice system." It's a pity.
Mike Rock UT alum January 30, 2007
Bus chivalry is dead
For the second time in as many trips on the 40 Acres shuttle, my wife - who wears a very visible leg brace due to a torn tendon - boarded a full bus of healthy students, none of whom gave up their seat, not even those sitting in the area reserved for the elderly and people with mobility impairments. Giving up your seat to someone who visibly needs it is not just a nicety, but a duty. That such common decency is conspicuously absent in this place of education, ideals and privilege should be an embarrassment to us all.
Paul Larsen Ph.D. candidate in mathematics January 30, 2007
It's people, not profits
Divestment is a tactic which has already been proven to work ("Sudan divestment bad legislation," Jan. 30). In fact, it is a form of economic embargo, the tactic most often used by nation states against other sovereign states in order to make them change their policies or actions. Since I began my "political" career urging the UT administration (along with many others) to divest its holdings in South Africa back in 1986, I think I can speak on this subject. Divestiture worked then, and it probably works even better now that information can be more widely and immediately shared via the Internet. The government of the Sudan must be isolated and made to feel the stigma of its actions in a substantive way. As long as it is able to get money from outside to maintain itself, then it will continue to do as it pleases.
I hate to generalize, but what is it about people in the business school? I know not everyone over there feels this way, but there seems to be a mind-set that believes any collective human effort outside the confines of the corporation to improve social, political or economic conditions is futile and even counterproductive.
The course of history has been altered by individuals or groups of individuals, from Jesus Christ to Gandhi, who followed through on their beliefs without concern for personal profit. I know you will laugh because of your short-sightedness. However, Al Gore (because of his movie "An Inconvenient Truth") and Cindy Sheehan (because she energized the anti-war effort when it began to ebb) will most probably effect the future more profoundly than Microsoft's new operating system or whatever gadget Apple develops next. No corporation has yet altered human history significantly, despite the bombastic and pompous claims of their advertising and marketing departments.
Finally I also have to correct a point that the author should already know, seeing as he is the finance major, not me. There are several investment funds available that invest money based on the investor's political, economic or social concerns. Just pick up a copy of the Sierra Club magazine and you will see ads for these funds.
Its not fiction, it's fact - profit is not the bottom line with every person or every company.
Jon Pearson UT alum January 30, 2007
Same old 76-cent argument
I'm sorry to see that the currently spotlighted article on the UT home page ("Equal Opportunities?") repeats the old chestnuts that "women take home only 76 percent of what males earn" and "only 15 percent of women hold top positions as board members or CEOs at Fortune 500 companies" without any notes as to the meaning, and more importantly, the misleading aspects of those statements.
If women actually earned 76 cents for doing exactly the same jobs as men, then bottom-line-oriented, profit-maximizing companies would simply fire every man in sight and hire nothing but women. That fact that they don't do that indicates other factors are at work. In fact, studies dating back to the 1970s show that "there is vast evidence that women who choose to remain single, invest in education and work long hours have in the past and continue to fare about as well as men in the labor market."
Further, to rise to the top of a Fortune 500 company, an executive must work far more than 40 hours per week and frequently accept geographical moves. Anyone not willing to do that, or who takes months or years away from the workplace (for any reason), is not going to rise as far or as fast. Given that males are generally more willing and able to work those long hours for years at a time without a break, one would obviously expect fewer females in top corporate positions.
Finally, government-mandated family leave penalizes women because a company simply cannot afford to hire anyone for an important position if there is a strong probability that they are going to leave that position for up to three months, with the company legally prohibited from hiring a replacement. A company would obviously be more able to lose an employee with less responsibility (and thus lower pay) for three months than one with critical decision-making responsibilities. Hence the reality-based, non-prejudiced, purely economic disincentives to hire a married woman of childbearing age for the most high-paying jobs. The facts suggest that a married woman who would sign an agreement not to become pregnant during her employment (and would perform the other required aspects of the job) would enjoy the same salary level as a single woman - i.e., the same pay level as a man.
These facts indicate that women who choose family over the workplace reduce the average salary of women as compared to men. They also indicate that women who make the opposite choice, and are willing to work as hard as men in other aspects of the job, are rewarded just as the men are, at the market price for doing that work. Not surprisingly, mentoring can only make a marginal difference in the impact of these facts.
Alan McKendree UT staff January 30, 2007
Be the first to comment on this article!