Day after day, we see immorality and violence on television, in movies and in the printed media (such as the advertising in some of the back pages of your paper), as well as on the streets of our communities.
Regardless of how we heap greatness on man, in the end, we must realize, "There is no celebrity with God."
I was very surprised to see that the woman (who allegedly killed 14-year-old José Rincon), described as the paralegal mother of two, is still driving on our streets. What really baffles me is that the court would provide assistance to any inebriated driver to get back on the road. I know the ways the laws are written make this possible.
There are drivers out there--who get caught with no insurance or perhaps driving on a suspended license--who have never had a drunk-driving incident, yet they are hit with fines that could take the average working person years to pay off, and in the meantime, they can't drive on the streets of Tucson--and there is no assistance to get these drivers back on the road. I am not justifying the act of drinking and driving or the act of driving without financial responsibility; I am only wondering why leniency from the courts is directed toward the most dangerous of drivers.
This woman's license was suspended for 30 days? Driving with a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit and killing an innocent 14-year-old child should be reasons enough for the courts to say, "Let's keep this from happening again," but instead, all of the broke people on Sun Tran--waiting for their paychecks so they can make small payments in the hopes that their licenses will be reinstated sometime within the decade--are watching the drunks cruise to work on their restricted licenses. Meanwhile, a family sits without their beloved son, and nobody can give them the satisfaction of knowing that, at the very least, this woman will not have the opportunity to kill again.
It is the responsibility of drivers to make sure that when they get behind that wheel, they are not going to risk their lives and the lives of others. If they make a conscious decision to drink knowing they are going to drive afterward, does that not show a blatant disregard for the well-being of others?
It makes me wonder if that woman's insurance policy covered manslaughter.
Theresa M. Hanson
What regulators need to do is assess the technical, social and economic effects of any proposed development while evaluating viable options that may have less of an environmental impact. We have more access to information than people have ever had in the history of time, but we still want to sit back and let someone else do our homework and entertain us while we ignore the realities of our high-tech demands.
I believe the most productive focus going forward should be on developing alternative energy sources and figuring out clever ways to recycle and use fewer resources than we do now. Mining is necessary to support our amazing lifestyles, including modern agriculture and medicine, global business, communications, travel and even solar energy. Let's see how it can be done with the minimum impact to the environment and in the most responsible manner possible.
However, while reading the online version of the Tucson Weekly, I was impressed by the article on the local group called Anonymous ("On Anonymous," Currents, April 10). I then began to understand what they were all about: It seems that the Church of Scientology is their target. I feel Anonymous members need to expand their quest to other churches and groups. Scientology is not the only dangerous entity which does evil in the name of religion, but they are right up there, in the front of the line.
I am not your average person who engages in such protests, but what I see going on here is quite admirable to me. In fact, I now wish to join up. I intend to do so, and I am willing to make a public ass of myself to benefit the fight against the evil foisted upon man by religions such as Scientology.
Gandhi once profoundly said, to the effect of, "I love your Christ, but I don't think much of your Christians." I think Anonymous is smack-bang right on target.
Letter-writer Patricia McKnight ("Felons, Not Their Schools, Need to Research Potential Difficulties," Mailbag, April 10) is to be scolded for her narrow response to this issue. She should have paid attention to the goodwill on the part of Convie and Pima Community College to solve this problem. It is essential that educational institutions and employers recognize that people with criminal records who want to turn their lives around make credible employees.