Shelton Needs to Take a Stand on SB 1070

It was extremely frustrating to read President Robert Shelton’s explanation of why—in sharp contrast to Arizona State University President Michael M. Crow—he did not take a stronger stand, or any stand at all, against SB 1070 (“The President Says,” Aug. 19). His reference to the 1960s is both misleading and inapposite, the former because UA students have not engaged in violent or otherwise inappropriate protests, and the latter because the massive demonstrations of the ’60s have absolutely nothing to do with his current failure to issue a forceful statement against the bill. Yet somehow, we’re supposed to be reassured that he’s “working with the legislators and the governor behind the scenes.” Does anyone have the foggiest idea of what he could mean by that?

President Shelton is entitled to his opinion. If he favors or is genuinely neutral about SB 1070, he should say so, stop beating around the bush and accept the consequences for his beliefs. If he opposes it, he should “stand up (for his) convictions.” Either would be preferable to an interview that insults our intelligence as it approaches the ultimate in political vapidity. He makes me embarrassed to be a student at the UA.

Charles Vernon

The Book Barn Is Open More Often Than Downing Says

The Friends of the Pima County Public Library Book Barn on Country Club Road is open for donations four hours a day, Monday through Thursday, from 8 a.m. to noon, and Thursday night from 6 to 9 p.m., rather than the four hours a week asserted by Renée Downing (Aug. 19).

This information is available at www.fpcpl.org. It’s curious that Downing, with her interest in new technology, didn’t bother to use it to check her facts.

Desha Hill

Humanists Are as Judgmental as Any Religious Person

I just read Irene Messina’s column regarding the separation of politics and religion (Aug. 26), and wanted to weigh in.

In the piece, there are many claims made by members of the Center for Inquiry of Southern Arizona that I take exception to, but the most ridiculous among these is Jerry Karches’ statement that hints that the abortion issue exists simply because of religious influence. He seems to suggest that without all the God-fearing fools out there and their superstitious beliefs, abortion as a so-called woman’s right would be a given.

Therein lies the problem with “humanist values” as a concept; it assumes a correct position exists, and that position happens to be theirs. Hmm, I think I’ve heard religion itself characterized in this way. In our secular society, a claim of absolutes, particularly as it relates to morality, is seen as intolerant and “bad.” I’m sick and tired of humanist ideology and its plethora of contradictions! Humanism, a title full of presumption, seems to serve only humans who agree with their irrational worldview.

The humanists cannot claim moral superiority unless they can demonstrate the existence of their moral base. The humanist has no moral base unless “might makes right.” They can appeal to “rationality” and “free thinking” all they want, but ultimately, “right” in the humanist’s mind is best defined as “what I think and feel” and “what I can get away with.” This, and not religious intrusion on policy-making, is actually the very heart of the abortion issue.

Jason Martinez

Want Safety? Make Fourth Avenue a Pedestrian-Only Zone

The martinets at the Tucson Police Department have prioritized imposing draconian penalties for such treacherous activities as jaywalking and the failure to make dorky hand signals while on a bicycle over, I don’t know, preventing break-ins downtown (“Watch Your Step!” The Skinny, Aug. 26). We should be trying to lure more people downtown instead of harassing those who come with the good sense not to pollute the air with their cars.

Here’s a solution for the safety-conscious: Make Fourth Avenue a pedestrian-only zone, just like during the Street Fair, but with shade trees, benches and outdoor bars and cafés. I’ve heard that only a couple of selfish businesses are preventing this from becoming reality.

Matt Scholz

If You Want to Carry a Gun, Take a Safety Course

Jonathan Hoffman’s guest commentary on guns and liberty (Aug. 26) raises questions about when one person’s liberty encroaches on another’s.

Maybe it will eventually be well-accepted (if it already isn’t) that a segment of the population needs a gun to feel comfortable in public—but it would be reassuring and help protect the liberty of those who choose not to carry guns if those who do would have some meaningful training on how to use them.

This year, the gun-safety class required by Arizona, which included a shooting test and a written test, was eliminated. Gun-toting criminals weren’t going to bother with this anyway, but at least there was some level of training likely for non-criminal gun owners.

Will these gun owners now get the training on their own and ensure that the liberty of the public is protected—or have we traded one group’s sense of liberty for another’s?

Doug Koppinger

This article appears in Sep 9-15, 2010.

5 replies on “Mailbag”

  2. I don’t think Mr. Marinez will be visiting anything that will bring him enlightenment. Like most religious apologists he simply talks himself in circles claiming that “God” somehow has spoken directly to him therefore his position is justified, while never once considering that “god” exists only in his clouded mind.

  3. The last thing we need is a government-mandated safety training requirement as a condtion of the “privilege” of exercising the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. First of all, there is a major industry in place offering affordable training for gun owners that goes ‘way beyond the ridiculous level of government-mandated training, which amounts to learning which end of the gun bites. If you knew anything about guns and rights, you would know that. Secondly, police officers, who receive mandated repetitive training every year and sometimes every quarter have a hugely greater rate of wrongful shootings than do civilians. Yet firearm owners repel 250,000 criminal attacks a year, and rarely have to fire their weapon. The right to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT, not a government-issued privilege, and in fact government has no lawful authority to say anything about it. I’m sorry for hurting your feelings, but your nervousness over others exercising their right to keep and bear arms does not compel any specific performance on their part, nor does it allow you to invade their privacy. The Second Amendment and State Constitution Article II Section 26 gives you all the fair notice you need that other people may be armed.

  5. Make Fourth Ave a pedestrian only throughfare w/ street car being the only vehicle permitted to access the avenue? (if they ever get the damn thing off the ground which I hope they do)

    I think you’re on to something…joy.

Comments are closed.