Editor:

“Privatization would end government ineptness” by Walter Block was an interesting paean to the “market,” but didn’t convey the whole story.

What we do know is that most government programs and institutions will fail if they are de-funded or their budgets badly cut. We know, for example, that Bush seriously cut the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget at least two years before Katrina struck. Thus, a first place to look for ascribing fault is not the ability of the Army Corps of Engineers – but the funding to enable to complete their projects properly.

It reminds me of when I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Barbados and the government once made the error of privatizing some road works programs. Before long, the budgets overshot the government’s ability to pay and the quality of work left much to be desired.

The water privatization scheme attempted in Bolivia is already a well-documented disaster, and it was finally abolished after major riots – when the privatizers tried to charge inhabitants for using rain water. I mean, after all, these miscreants attempted to skirt the precious “market.” How terrible.

In most nations public works operate just fine once they are adequately funded by tax dollars. The problem is that too many in this country no longer want to pay the taxes to support the intense work that needs to be done, especially now with a massively crumbling infrastructure.

“Privatizing” will not solve this, since the demand for obscene profit will simply supersede all other priorities – look at Halliburton in Iraq – and make all the necessary work programs much more expensive, at a time when the nation is already veering toward $500 billion a year deficits.

Phil A. StahlB’65

Editor:

As most of you are aware, Tuesday there was an anti-abortion demonstration in front of Monroe Hall. I am not writing to express my opinions of abortion, but on how the student body reacted to the demonstration.

I am referring to the constant addition and removal of signs from both sides of the issue. During the day, I witnessed pro-choice signs being placed around the pro-life demonstration and then removed by pro-life students. The pro-choice signs were then placed away from the pro-life demonstration. After this, pro-life signs were placed around the pro-choice signs, they were then removed by pro-choice students. What developed was a propaganda war, where both sides forcibly removed opposing views from their “turf.”

My issue with these proceedings is that Loyola University claims to be a “Critical Thinking” campus, where views from all sides can be heard and judged. The behavior of our student body on both sides of this particular conflict leaves much to be desired. I feel that both sides came out of this with a black eye. Any group of people who are unwilling or unable to deal with information and opinions of their opposition should think twice before organizing a public demonstration.

I am not naive enough to expect all of us to be able to put all of our differences aside and go out for a drink. What I do expect is that students of this university be willing to stand up to a little conflict on issues and not resort to censorship of those who disagree.

The solution to this dilemma is for everyone to actively promote open discussion of issues and not just their own opinions of the issues. Only when we know all sides of an issue can we make good decisions.

Aaron A. Walker Member of the Loyola Society for Civic Engagement (LSCE)communications senior