LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Phantoms of 42nd Street

To the Editor: Not just one lone voice, but an entire chorus. It was truly the most beautiful sound to come out of the night since I have lived here and grown to fear the city darkness. I don't know who the voices belonged to -- but I assume they were members of the University community. I want them to know that even at that hour they had an appreciative audience. So, to the "Phantoms of 42nd Street" -- thank you! "Southern Cross" brought tears to my eyes as I stood barefoot in the cold, singing along ... welcome to the neighborhood! ELIZABETH BOWEN Nursing '95 To the Editor: It Got Him Into Penn I would like to direct a question to the pompous Princeton alumni -- Jeff Trost -- who keeps writing in to the DP ("Civility Lessons From Princeton" DP, 11/9/94). Question: Where did your "superior" Princeton education get you? Answer: Into Penn. ROB SHEGOL College '95 To the Editor: Not A Constitutional Right It boggles my mind that there exists a debate concerning people's rights to terminate the life of the unborn child. Miriam Shapiro's letter ("Pro-Lifer Reputation" DP, 11/22/94) is the perfect example of someone abusing the Constitution by misinterpreting it as a document that gives people the "right" to do whatever makes them happy, so long as they don't kill anyone in the process. She implies that the right to have an abortion is granted by the Constitution. It is easy to make the point of the Pro-life party on strictly moral grounds, but this debate has grown somewhat tiresome and repetitive. Miriam, if you want to talk legal rights, at least get the facts straight. There are certain rights that the Constitution bestows upon us, like free speech and freedom of religion. Even these rights are not absolute, and it is not always clear when we are stepping out of the bounds of Constitutional protection. It is the job of the legislative and judicial bodies to legislate morality. Prostitution, gambling, and the like, are illegal for this very reason. At the present time, the Supreme Court has not ruled abortion illegal. This is a totally different matter than saying that the Constitution itself grants the right to have an abortion. American law is a living and constantly changing entity, with the Constitution as its backbone. Throughout history, the Constitution has been interpreted by different people as saying different things about the same issue, such as racially separate but equal schools. The Constitution is the backbone of the legal system and government that has made our country great. Let us not abuse it by turning it into an umbrella of rights that we call upon whenever it suits our purposes. Melissa Magnotti College '96 To the Editor: Poor Misguided Republican Would someone please suggest to the poor soul from Wharton who heads the College Republicans that he needs to learn the facts before he stands upon his mighty soapbox? In his response to Darin Smith's column, "The Politics of Fear," Dan Debicella ("Triumph of Democracy" DP, 11/22/94) not only does a disservice to himself, the Penn chapter of College Republicans, and Wharton, but to his beloved Grand Old Party as well. Debicella states that, "A crime bill was passed with too little money for crime prevention and too much money for 'pork' projects in Congressmen's districts." Please! The Republicans have bashed the crime bill for providing any money, whatsoever, for crime prevention. Too little? Hardly. Apparently, Dan is so under-informed and confused that he thought the Republicans were talking about two different things when speaking about prevention and "pork," when in fact they are synonymous amongst most Republicans. Fortunately, we have leaders with the vision to stand up to the Republican challengers who claim that the crime bill's prevention programs are nothing but "pork." President Bill Clinton stated, in the heat of the battle in the House over the crime bill that, "It makes my blood boil" when Republicans call the money allocated for prevention programs "pork." Similarly, former U.S. Senator Harris Wofford stated that the prevention money is, in fact, "the substance of the bill." But perhaps most profound, were the remarks of Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell, who eloquently argued that the Republican leadership's decision to focus on federally-funded Midnight Basketball Leagues is an example of the crime prevention initiatives they vehemently oppose. He claimed that the Republicans chose this issue because it was racially charged, as these leagues have traditionally benefitted African-Americans in economically depressed and crime-infested neighborhoods in America's big cities. Of course, there's no reason to support effective crime prevention methods. It's much more important to build more prisons so we can lock up the thugs and throw away the key instead of striking a reasonable balance between punishment and prevention. Both are needed to help reduce crime and lawlessness in America. I hope we can all agree that it is important, if not most important, to build a fence at the edge of our cliffs instead of providing ambulances at the bottom. As for Mr. Debicella, I hope he does indeed agree that there was "too little money for crime prevention." However, I fear that his inability to understand the oversimplisitic Republican argument was the reason it appeared that he, in fact, wanted more money allocated for crime prevention. Perhaps if he took more time to inform himself, he would realize that difficult problems require difficult solutions. Unfortunately, those promoted by the Republicans (and I would guess Mr. Debicella) are not the ones we need to move this country forward. Nate Rice '95 Graduate School of Education To the Editor: Traffic Related Injuries What is happening at our school? Why has there been a marked increase in the number of traffic related injuries to University students this year? Penn students aren't stupid and most have enough common sense to follow the rules of the road -- cars outweigh students. And we aren't just jumping into the streets to try to give roommates 4.0's. These accidents are happening due to the increase in traffic on the mean city streets. With bikes banned on the Walk, the only option left for students are the streets of Philadelphia. With the multitude of crazy drivers out there, getting doored or sideswiped is a common occurrence. Since Walnut Street only runs west, students are forced to either ride on the sidewalks, or to veer way North to Chestnut Street in order to ride to class. In addition, with the neverending construction that has been going on at on HUP for the last five years, Spruce Street squeezes all traffic, cars, bicycles, and people into a very narrow thoroughfare. It is this area, by 34th and Spruce, where the two most serious accidents have occurred. With nowhere else safe to ride, sidewalks have become the last resort. Unfortunately, the sidewalks are not large enough to accommodate the increase in traffic. Incidentally, riding on the sidewalks of Philadelphia is a violation of a city ordinance. What are students to do if the one safe route on campus is taken away from them? By forcing cyclists off Locust Walk, the "problem" that they pose is passed onto Spruce and Walnut streets. Rather than banning all bikes from the Walk, enacting a few rules restricting speed and reckless behavior, as well as guidelines for both cyclists and students on how to coexist safely on Locust Walk might be a more plausible solution. Locust Walk is a reasonable, safe way for students to travel around campus, both on bike and on foot. Revoking the bike ban (and refunding the fines) is the logical, equitable solution. Hopefully, the University will rethink its policy before more of our classmates need to be scraped off the road. Lauren Slawe College '95 Theodore Tsai Wharton '95