Attacks are our misprioritization
To the Editor:
America is facing this tragedy of September eleventh in part because of overconfidence. Why were all 4 hijacked planes domestic flights? Because over half a decade ago when security was being raised for international flights the domestic airlines complained that it would slow them down if they had to implement increased security measures as well. Convenience took precedent over safety and the lives of passengers, and domestic flight security remained much lower than international flight security. To give another example, we didn’t have any minesweepers deployed to protect our forces in the Middle East when we entered the Gulf War. To the surprise of only those with little foresight, our ships hit mines. Why were there no minesweepers? Because they aren’t big and impressive, and they don’t get you promoted. Therefore, nobody likes them. The same goes for US security: we want to build a missile defense system because it’s big and impressive and looks good in the history books and when running for re-election. We can point to it and say, “Look! We have this defense system and now we are invincible to the attacks of rogue states!” We do not want to spend extra time and money on low-profile, low-prestige counter-terrorism measures, the measures which would stop the rogue states from committing more deadly attacks such as Tuesday’s. The United States needs to get over its feeling of “it can’t happen here; we’re too big and strong for anyone to do that to us” and start paying attention to the fact that really matters: America is vulnerable.
M. Alan Thomas II
English
Class of 2004
Unfairness in kids’ sports cruel
To the Editor:
Although I almost feel guilty interrupting the great -ism debate, I feel it is crucial to draw your and your readers’ attentions to a shocking, narrow-minded article, published in your “Sports” section.
Robbie Schwindt’s “Are We Trying to Parent the ‘Perfect’ Athlete” paints a picture of Danny Almonte as a tortured child, attempting to garner our sympathy for the boy who was parodied on that bastion of responsible media and insightful lessons in child-rearing, MTV. While I think it is important to realize the traumatic effect of stroking a fourteen-year-old’s ego often has on him (insert relevant symbol for honey-thick sarcasm here), it is simply irresponsible of Schwindt to claim that the victims weren’t the hundred-or-so twelve-year-olds who played fairly and squarely yet saw their dreams shattered by someone two years stronger than they in the hormonal war of attrition that is pubescent sports. The borderline-sadistic life lesson that the members of the Bainbridge Island (Washington) and Oceanside (California) little-league teams were taught is only exacerbated by articles such as Schwindt’s, which not only ignore the absolute heartbreak the children must have experienced when their season of sweat, tears, and countless sessions of swinging at underhand tosses and chasing pop-flies led to decimation at the hands of a teenager whom they, by all accounts, would not have ever met had life been fair. It is simply cruel that a sport should ever be as unfair as it was for these children who devoted their lives to get to the most prominent playing-field in the world, only to discover that it was far from level.
And that the media didn’t care.
Benjamin Dweck
Marketing and English
Class of 2005
Mr. Wang not “sufficiently aware”
To the Editor:
Those looking to refute Patrick McKenzie’s arguments about the necessity of the Social Justice Center need look no further than Ho Simon Wang’s recent Letter to the Editor. McKenzie argues that we as a campus are “sufficiently aware.” Mr. Wang (a senior HISTORY major!) provides us with an uninformed and incredibly ethnocentric letter in which he judges Chinese culture to be superior to African culture. He goes on to assert that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were not teachers and that “their influence is limited.” For everyone’s sake, let’s hope that Mr. Wang’s is limited as well.
Brian Eufinger
Political Science and Management
Class of 2004
Off campus coverage incomplete
To the Editor:
There has been much hoopla about increased police activity in the Loop as a result of uncontrollable student behavior in these areas.
I think the Student Life article on the subject was rather biased; the only people interviewed were people affiliated with the University. The real story here is that there is friction between the University and the community surrounding the school, especially because of Parkview Properties.
Parkview’s wholesale buyout of buildings in the Kingsland – Mehlville block has had the following effects:
1) rent has increased by several hundred dollars on each building
2) non-Wash U apartment buildings have increased their rents, causing previous tenants (and non-Wash U students) to find buildings with cheaper rent. This is called gentrification.
3) a decrease in revenue for the public schools in University City, because Wash U, being a ‘non-profit institution’, does not have to pay property taxes on its buildings.
I am perplexed that the main concern is “rowdy” student behavior. When have students ever been complacent or passive? Furthermore, regarding the residents who are complaining, my guess (which could be wrong) is that it is residents of the pleasant, gated community just north of the campus and south of Delmar.
Here is my question for those residents: you have chosen to live in between the Loop and WU. The Loop is a boisterous, lively neighborhood of St. Louis. WU is a campus with 5,000 people aged 18-22. Yeah, it gets loud and lively.
Go figure.
But, as the recent Student Life editorial implores, students should let their neighbors know about their parties. Hell, students should meet their neighbors. This would be a first step in creating cohesive communities. Increased police activity is a band-aid. Better community structures and increased communication between the university and the community, the students and the neighborhoods – that is our long-term solution.
Shawn Kumar
Biology
Class of 2003