Archived: Oct 29, 2007

> Editorial

Letters to the Editor - 10/29/07

Students treated unfairly

Dear UWM Post,

I am a neighbor and read the article titled, “True story: I live in a brothel” (October 22, 2007, page 23).

[The authorities] do not enforce this [occupancy rule] because they are in fear of brothels, but because the local alderman who panders to developers is trying to get rid of the students so his friends can pick up some real estate. East Side Ald. Mike D’Amato started this rule and it is only enforced near campus.

He loves harassing college students; just look at the parking, towing and ticketing. If he pushed you enough you will live elsewhere and property values will drop so his buds can pick up more land.

Do you think this is enforced on the South Side? No. How about Riverwest with houses overflowing with extra tenants aka artists? No. Check it out, students are being discriminated against and should revolt!

Students should work to make university students a protected class in Wisconsin. Who thought this would ever be necessary? Who thought that getting an education would be a bad thing? The good thing is that the students can be heard by voting the alderman out of office. He has attacked UWM over and over again. Students can vote and should. The primary is in February, and if enough students vote, you can get rid of this pest. Get rid of D’Amato and your life will be much better.

UWM Alumni and East Side resident

U.S. neglects human rights

The words of Johanan Raatz ring hollow on several occasions. Raatz writes of democracy, human rights, and justifies massive human rights violations while omitting reference to any specific CIA-backed overthrow of a foreign government.

American patriotism has rarely adhered to an ideology of equality and inalienable human rights. While the Declaration said “all men are created equal,” we all know that wasn’t the practice.

Those words were included in the Declaration by Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner and rapist. No consensual sexual relationship can exist when one person’s life (Sally Hemings’) is treated as property and completely dependent upon another individual.

Our founding fathers fought the American Revolution with the aid of France and won, helping solidify their continued profiteering based upon slavery.

Fourteen years later, Toussaint L’Ouverture’s Constitution abolished French imposed slavery in Haiti. Jefferson was not happy to say the least. Word of a successful slave revolt in 1804 furthered Jefferson’s unease.

Other U.S. Presidents have felt “uneasy” about supporting human rights. Let’s take the case of Chilean President Salvador Allende Gossens. Under President Richard Nixon and the CIA’s Operation Condor, Allende was overthrown on September 11, 1973, by General Augusto Pinochet. While the U.S. was actively attempting to overthrow Allende since his election in 1970, it was not for human rights violations. Allende’s economic policies were not in line with U.S. policies.

Human rights violations did not become a factor until U.S.-backed Augusto Pinochet took over as dictator of Chile. In a declassified State Department file, U.S. Ambassador David Popper stated that “preventing the re-emergence of a Chilean Government essentially hostile to us is our chief interest and the human rights problem is secondary.” A lack of respect for human rights on the part of the American government does not get much clearer than that.

In his article, Raatz stated that “democracy is a good thing, but respect for human rights should come before it.” In the case of Allende in Chile, the United States overthrew the democratic process and reinforced a dictator committing human rights violations. This example has not been cherry picked to prove Raatz wrong. The same can be said of the numerous additional cases of CIA involvement.

In today’s coverage of Iran, Haiti, and Venezuela, we rarely hear of their democratically elected leaders’ ousting with U.S. backing. Economic policies rather than human rights were the issues in the cases of President Mossadeq in Iran (1953), Aristide in Haiti (1991 and 2004), and Chavez in Venezuela (2002). The list of CIA involvement in other countries continues. One can find more on U.S. intervention by doing an Internet search of the National Security Archives at George Washington University or the name Luis Posada Carriles.

Brian Averill
Students For a Democratic Society

‘Blackmail’ wrong term to use

Dear Letter to the Editor,

I am replying to an article which appeared on the front page of October 15,

2007.

The term 'blackmail' always involves the divulging of secrets. I can tell you, there weren't any secrets to be divulged, so 'blackmail' is the wrong term. The point is Mr. Grover's spending of $30,000 was made public knowledge. And this is on top of another $150,000 of student funds appropriated on Oct. 7, which he now could spend in increments of up to $5,000 a piece.

Most people in student government are ambitious. This year Mr. Grover earns $9,000, Mr. Bahr earns $6,000, and they appoint people who receive salaries from those same student funds; for example Mr. Kristopeit earns $4,500 a year.

Everything I have done in student government has been as a volunteer and I have received no money from our students. If you want to hold people accountable, judge those who earn the money that comes from our students. Then the process will be transparent, as to determining if they are a good investment.

Thank you.

Senator Russel Scott
University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee

> Comments

Johanan Raatz on Oct 30, 2007 at 08:49 AM:

I will respond to some of the other points later but I'll point out that Allende was a radical Marxist allied with dictator Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Although not all in our government felt human rights reasons were important for getting rid of him. He still was a threat to human rights. The reason for this is that when you say that Allende’s economic policies were not in line with ours what that really means is that he was a Communist. Communism itself violates human rights. Communists everwyhere must be removed from power before they endanger human rights. Though Pinochet was a fascist or perhaps just authoritarian, depending on how you want to classify it, he was definitely the lesser of two evils. Granted this is bad but far fewer human rights violations occured under Pinochet than would have if Allende was allowed to remain in power. Furthermore, though he may have done this inhumanely, many of the many of the people Pinochet killed were really just Marxist terrorists.

Brian Averill on Nov 02, 2007 at 09:36 PM:

Radical Marxist or not, Allende was democratically elected. Point out one person, no five people, who stated that Salvador Allende was a threat to human rights, since you claim "some," but not all thought he "was a threat to human rights."

No, economic policies that differ from the United States' do not automatically make one a Communist. There's no denying Allende's relationship with Casto and the USSR, but that doesn't mean Chile was necessarily headed toward either model. There are numerous present-day relationships where this is proven also. You make contradictory statements. How can Communists endanger human rights if Communism violates them? "Communists must be removed from power before they endanger human rights everywhere?" Quite the idealogical statement.

Then we have the scariest thing you've said. Pinochet was "the lesser of two evils." Back this up. You have cited nothing in your editorial or response. Nothing.

Name Marxist terrorists that Pinochet killed. It's interesting that you justify summary executions with the reservation that they're "inhumane."

So let's see some proof, evidence, citations, etc. Who in the U.S. was saying we have to get rid of Allende because of human rights violations? What were those human rights violations? Where is there evidence that Allende's supposed human rights violations would outweigh Pinochet's? Who are these Marxist terrorists who were justifiably killed in your eyes?