A helping hand-out
I would like to counter Andrew Jenkins' Oct. 3 Firing Line "Will beg for beer" that the homeless don't deserve our charity. Reasonable people can disagree about whether directly giving panhandlers money is wise - they might use the money to support self-destructive behavior (such as drinking or drugs). The merits of this argument are debatable, in my opinion (should UT withhold my pay if I am in treatment for substance abuse or addition?), so I often succumb to panhandlers' requests. However, I would strongly argue that the homeless do deserve some sort of charity or support from society.
Jenkins implies that homeless panhandlers should be scorned, because they are "exploiting the system" to their advantage. If they are still on the street, I would argue they are not doing that well. Besides, don't we admire business people who exploit "the system" for personal gain? Couldn't you call your education at UT a manner of learning to better exploit the system? So if handing out cash to homeless might be counter-productive, how about donating our time (or treasure) to organizations that provide services to the homeless? In my volunteer experience with a group called Mobile Loaves and Fishes (www.mlfnow.org), I have had the opportunity to meet, on the street, men and women who are homeless because they can't figure out "the system" and don't fit neatly into our society. And I have learned that these homeless are real people with unique stories who deserve help in their struggle to survive.
Jon E. Olson
Associate professor of petroleum and geosystems engineering
October 3, 2006
Another side of Werner
Though I very much appreciate The Daily Texan highlighting Libertarian gubernatorial candidate James Werner in Monday's issue, one article cannot present the full breadth of Werner's excellent views on government and his plans for the future of Texas.
I would encourage all readers to come and hear James Werner speak on Oct. 16 in the Mezes building auditorium on campus to hear the rest of the story. Werner is the only candidate with a truly consistent governmental philosophy, focusing on reducing the size of state government and increasing the personal freedom of all citizens.
Norman Horn
Chemical engineering graduate research assistant
October 3, 2006
Market forces in your cup
Poverty is definitely a problem that the world needs to address, but "fair-trade" and "living wage" policies are not intelligent ways of doing it ("Destitution in your cup," Oct. 2). Oversupply of any commodity will cause that commodity's price to plummet; these are the simple workings of supply and demand. Any policy that attempts to undermine them will also undermine any impetus for real change in the world.
Artificially rising the price of coffee so that farmers will earn wages that we deem "acceptable" will remove any motivation for these workers to learn new skills and for their children to focus on education. A better use of our time and resources would be to promote commercial and industrial development in the world's poorer nations, and then connect the indigent with these jobs. With fewer farmers providing coffee, the price of coffee will naturally increase. Furthermore, former farmers will find themselves pursuing high-tech jobs that pay better, offer better upward mobility and produce both products and knowledge that benefit the entire country.
Abandon those candy-coated yet noxious notions of "fair-trade" and "living wages" - we can do much better.
Ian Hlavacek
Civil engineering
graduate student
October 2, 2006
Left in the ozone
The fact that 13 of 17 Ozone Action Days were less polluted than forecast suggests that Ozone Action Days were actually working ("Capital Metro ends free ozone days," Oct. 3). Capital Metro began last year by cutting employee benefits to the point of inciting a strike. Now the hatchet has been turned on the environment and the passengers.
Our Transit Authority is enjoying higher revenues than any time in its history, yet they are cutting ozone days, shuttle service, bus-stop construction and the promised rapid buses. The resources are being shifted to the Leander train, which will deliver only 2,000 trips a day by Metro's own estimates. These people already enjoy the best service the system currently offers. Excuse us, but may we please have our transit system back?
Glenn Gaven
UT alum
October 3, 2006
Education, not censorship
As a 19-year book industry professional, I was appalled by Stephanie Beckett's naivete ("Book ban shouldn't scare," Oct. 2). She fails to mention that the books that are not banned for "offensive language or sexually explicit material" include Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird," the Harry Potter series and many others. Several of these books get beyond "the challenge stage" and are out-and-out removed from the libraries. And it's not just in elementary and middle schools. Many high school and public libraries have banned the works of Jack Kerouac, J.D. Salinger, Stephen King, Mario Puzo and countless others.
While it is true that very few books are currently banned by the federal government, school districts are local governments and they ban books all the time. Publications by D. H. Lawrence, Henry Miller and Anais Nin were all banned by the federal government at one time or another.
The example ("It's Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health") of why certain books should be banned is shallow and closed-minded. Parents need to look out for kids by educating them, not hiding the facts of the world from them.
Rick Klaw
Online reader
October 2, 2006
Be the first to comment on this article!