Letters to the Editor

Election proved need for a working class political movement

To the Daily:

Though there were several limitations to the editorial "Republican Coup" (1/04/01), the Daily was correct in pointing out the attack on democratic rights involved in the selection of George W. Bush as President.

The election itself involved a series of irregularities, followed by an extensive campaign to prevent a recount, and concluded by a Supreme Court decision which argued that United States citizens do not have the constitutional right to vote for the President.

Upon recognizing this attack on democracy, one must ask the further questions: What is the basic cause of this attack? And upon what basis must a defense of democratic rights be built?

American society is characterized by extreme social inequality, where a tiny minority of the population owns the vast majority of the nation's wealth, while the majority lives with constant material poverty or insecurity.

This wealthy elite forms the social basis of the Republican Party, and its attempts to carry out its increasingly right-wing agenda is bound to run up against popular opinion. Democracy is a barrier to its aims.

At the same time the Democrats and the liberal establishment, which in the last analysis rest on the same social base as the Republicans, have proven themselves incapable of leading a campaign in defense of democracy.

The capitulation of Gore is pathetic but foreseeable.

In order to defend democratic rights, the Democrats would be forced to rally the working class and this they are organically incapable of doing.

If this election has demonstrated anything, it is the urgent necessity of building an independent political movement of the working class with the aim of abolishing social inequality and the economic system that creates it, thereby creating the conditions for genuine democracy.

Joseph Tanniru

LSA junior President, students for social equality

Concealed weapons will promote safety

To the Daily:

Does the Daily really understand what the new concealed weapons law is going to do for the state of Michigan ("Safety Under Fire," 1/5/01)? Does the Daily truly believe that the law-abiding citizens who are most likely going to be using this new law are the ones that are going to be out committing crimes? The people carrying guns on the streets these days are not the ones using them for crimes, but the ones most likely using them for personal protection and safety.

This new law has provisions requiring gun safety classes and training. If I was a criminal walking the streets with the intention of harming someone or robbing them I would certainly think twice about it if I thought they were carrying a gun. As a matter of fact, if I suspected a person was carrying a gun I absolutely would not use them as a target. If you want to talk about "urban crime rates, escalation of otherwise simple fights ..." why don't you study the crime rates of European countries like London where the police don't even carry guns. The crime rate per 1,000 people is tremendously higher than in the United States where guns are protected in our Constitution.

If our founding fathers didn't keep arms and put the provision into the Constitution, do you think we would even have a free country today or would we still be taxed without representation and controlled by the King? We blazed the trail for more freedom even in their own country so think twice about taking away the rights we have as citizens of this great country.

Kevin Hogle

Engineering junior