Prop. 209 articles misleading public
In your paper, articles about Proposition 209, the California
Civil Rights Initiative, have ignored "Clause C." This clause
legalizes sex discrimination in public employment. Clause C allows
public agencies to adopt arbitrary standards which have been used
to deny women equal access to job opportunities in blue-collar
trades, athletics and other male-dominated fields. Any reason for
discrimination against women or girls in employment, admittance,
contracting, wages or promotions can be used – be it size of
uniforms, height, or availability of gender specific space.
Prop. 209 is neither "civil" nor "right." It is designed to deny
the constitutional protections that outlaw discrimination. The
public should know who is paying for Prop. 209 and what their real
motives are. Contrary to what they say, the backers don’t care
about civil rights. They claim to, but Pete Wilson and Michael
Huffington were never part of the civil rights or women’s
movements. Reports filed with the Fair Political Practices
Commission show that the biggest contributor to Prop. 209 is the
Republican Party.
Don’t let them fool you into believing that they want equality.
Men and women who believe in equal pay for equal work should be
appalled at Prop. 209. The economic impact on two-income families
will be disastrous. Every parent, grandparent or family with
daughters, or those that depend on two incomes should say "No to
Prop. 209" in November.
Abby Bugomolny Burning Bush Publications
Two parties too close for comfort
Returning to the L.A. area for a brief round of apartment
hunting, I pick up the Daily Bruin to catch up with the current
level of intellectual discourse on issues of importance. The
Viewpoint article entitled "Who deserves education?" clearly shows
that Eddie Murphy’s "The Nutty Professor" was probably a little too
intellectual for the summertime campus. Simply look at how a
dialogue is supposed to be taking place between the same person
because, unlike the added brains of Los Angeles area TV consumers,
I don’t think glasses disguise anyone’s secret identity.
I can’t be the only person who didn’t recognize that this
so-called debate was between one person, first photographed from
the right with glasses (shirt unbuttoned) and then from the left
(shirt buttoned). The "dialogue" doesn’t even meet even rudimentary
qualifications as a disagreement. The only issues debated
(non-bullshit campaign-related antagonism discounted) were that
education is a citizen’s right and not a human right and that open
borders are the last thing anyone wants .
More egregious were the assumptions underlying the conversation,
which are real points of contention in a real debate about
immigration. In a real debate, terminology like "illegal," instead
of the more accurate description "undocumented," would have been
challenged, as well as the claim that a "majority" of Chicano/as
voted for Prop. 187 in an election that had typical voter turnout
for a midterm election, right around 50 percent.
The belief that there is any difference between the two parties
seems to be a comic book fable much like the difference between
Clark and Superman. The 1996 presidential campaign seems to be the
same as the 1996 Super Bowl, no real difference between the two
sides, just a much publicized battle between very expensive
commercials.
Patrick Doyle Second Year Pre-Political
Science
War on drugs really a war on the poor
According to investigative reports in the San Jose Mercury News,
the CIA was involved in importing cocaine and funneling that drug
to inner-city neighborhoods, using the proceeds to finance the
terrorist Contra army in Nicaragua.
However, the real economic motivations will still likely remain
hidden.
The British imported opium into China not only because it was
profitable, but because opium made the Chinese more docile, less
able to organize resistance and, hence, easier to exploit.
The idea that this country has a "War on Drugs" is the greatest
lie and hypocrisy ever perpetrated on the American people. The
so-called "War on Drugs" is a cover for two very important
policies.
First, it provides an excuse to incarcerate a large proportion
of poor African-American youth, for whom there are few jobs and who
might rebel against their dire condition. Also, the deleterious
effects of these drugs on rational thought keeps these youths from
organizing themselves into a potent political force.
Second, it provides an excuse to keep the poor in other
countries under control. The weapons, training and U.S. advisors
that go to Columbia, Mexico and Peru are not for drug interdiction,
but to fight leftist guerrillas or establish paramilitary groups
which kill union organizers, peasant leaders and leftist candidates
for public office. In Columbia and Mexico, hundreds of leftist
candidates, some former guerrillas who laid down their weapons
under an amnesty, have been assassinated by these right-wing
paramilitary groups. The media in the United States always preach
that these guerrilla armies should try democracy and electoral
politics and then when they do, they get slaughtered. Talk about
the evil empire!
Gary Sudoborough Community Activist Bellflower,
Ca.