Help the Carribean victims of Hurricane Jeanne

As many of you know, the Caribbean has been hit by a series of hurricanes in the past few weeks that have devastated the lives of many people in ways we can only imagine. Haiti and Grenada are two countries that have been hit particularly hard and need our help right now.

Over 2,400 people have died because of the damage left by Hurricane Jeanne. Tens of thousands more are homeless or unable to obtain food or drinking water. Thousands are living on rooftops of Haiti's third largest city, Gonaives. And the fact that Haiti effectively has no real government makes matters worse.

Because so many in our community are of Haitian descent — students, Frist workers, dining hall staff, and building services — many of your friends, classmates, and colleagues have been personally affected by this tragedy.

And Haiti isn't alone. Hurricane Jeanne ravaged Grenada's crops that are central to its economy, and the vast majority of homes. Ninety percent of the country is in ruins.

This week, the Princeton Caribbean Connection will be having a table in Frist, everyday from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. to raise funds for hurricane relief. Please stop by and make a donation; every little bit helps. Leslie-Bernard Joseph '06

Au contraire, abortion issue really is that simple

Regarding 'Abortion issue isn't so simple' (Letter, Sept. 27):

The letter claims Pavlic ignores situations in which an adult human's rights take precedence over those of a developing human.

Obviously this cannot be true; such situations do not exist. Human rights apply equally to everyone. Of these rights, the most basic is the right to life; without life, we can neither exercise nor enjoy any other right. Thus, the right to life is absolute and inviolable.

Contrary to the letter's assertion, reasonable people cannot disagree: Murdering an innocent human being is wrong, no matter what its age. It is a gross misuse of reason to view the legal holocaust of children as anything other than an "intrinsically evil act." Natural death is beyond our control; abortion is willful murder.

The letter argues that to oppose abortion in cases of rape, incest, or medical emergency is to say that a woman's rights to physical and emotional health exist only when she is not pregnant. In reality, these "rights" never exist.

However, even if they did, they would not be suspended during pregnancy; rather, they would exist secondarily, as always, to the fundamental right to life of all humans, including the child. A child's right to life always takes precedence over the convenience for the mother; thus, abortion is still wrong.

Calling upon voters to end this disgusting practice is not merely latching on to a wedge issue in order to garner political support. When 1.3 million people are being systematically exterminated each year in our own country, the issue supersedes partisan lines.

I do agree with the letter's conclusion, though: "Voters everywhere have a duty to think a little harder about who deserves their vote." Surely, the harder one thinks about legalized murder, the sooner one realizes that it is impossible to justify it. Jennifer Mickel '07

Hoping airport tantrum commentary is a joke

Regarding 'A funny thing happenned on the way to Vegas' (Aileen Nielsen, Sept. 21):

I hope Nielsen's article about the trials and tribulations she encountered while at the airport was an attempt at satire. If not, she needs to welcome reality into her life.

Nielsen contended that her First Amendment rights were stripped away, her property was damaged, and that present stepped-up efforts for increased airport security are reminiscent of Stalin's Soviet Union.

These are serious charges that she leveled against the Transportation Security Administration, Southwest Airlines and the Oakland Police, and if accurate they should be dealt with judiciously. After all, what is the point of protecting freedoms if they are only to be forsaken?

The problem is that none of Nielsen's rights were infringed. The officials she encountered that day were only doing their jobs, which are crucial to our national security. Nielsen overreacted and failed to treat people with respect. The consequences of the day were a result of her actions not some draconian, neo-Stalinist, airport security plot.

In making the claim that her First Amendment rights were violated, I believe Nielsen is completely off base. The scope of the First Amendment's protections, in fact, is quite narrow: It protects speakers from inappropriate or unnecessarily rigorous governmental limits on certain kinds of speech, most notably political speech.

However, I think Nielsen would have a hard time convincing a federal court that an airport-centered temper tantrum is tantamount to protection-worthy political speech. She does have the right to protest recent changes in airport security, but she has no right to become offensive and unruly, especially when doing so puts others at potential risk.

So a funny thing happened when I read that article. It made me disappointed that a fellow Princetonian could be so out of touch with reality and think she was being victimized by an airport security system whose sole purpose is to ensure her safe transit. John Karakoulakis '03