Human Rights Council’s purpose is protection

The purpose of the United Nations Human Rights Council is to protect human rights in a world filled with bloodshed and horrific human rights abuses.

To gain membership into the Human Rights Council, a nation is picked simply based on “equitable geographical distribution.” This means that a country with a track record for human rights abuse is eligible for election because eligibility is solely based on location.

This is a scary thought that has sadly become a reality, leading to the council becoming one of the most prominent hypocrisies today. Twenty-one resolutions focused on Israel and a meager four resolutions were passed focusing on other countries in 2013.

With countries such as Syria, where more than 150,000 deaths in the Civil War have occurred, and Pakistan, where oppression of its minority population runs rampant, the numbers 21 and four seem disproportionate.

The simple truth to this issue is the United Nations Human Rights Council is a biased forum not to protect human rights, but to attack the lesser represented Israel.

Adam Bukani

University of Arizona student, Tucson

Leaders out of touch with city’s real needs

Re: the April 9 article “City may borrow to pay off older debt.”

Once again our city fathers have shown how out of touch they are with the real needs of the city.

The proposal to borrow $45 million, of which $18 million will go to the streetcar that does nothing and goes nowhere, suggests that their heads are buried in the potholes, which have earned our city the distinction of having the fourth-worst road conditions in the country.

When will they repair the roads? Since they need one, I’ll be happy to write them a prescription for reality.

Philip Fleishman

Physician, Tucson

Subscription stopped after Obamacare cartoon

Re: the April 9 editorial cartoon by Glenn McCoy.

I would hope that when I read my morning paper, serving both large metropolitan and small rural communities, that the news would be presented in an intelligent, bipartisan manner.

The offensive “McDonald’s/Obamacare” cartoon has ended my subscription relationship with the Star. Whether a Democrat or a Republican voter, this is inappropriate.

It is no wonder that with this type of message we have so many uninformed residents regarding their health care options.

Judy Russell

Clinical nurse specialist, Tucson

Promote social service for tax status

Re: the April 8 guest column “Senate Dems, Obama seek to thwart free speech.”

It is dispiriting to watch our new senator Jeff Flake cry “freedom of speech” and point a conspiratorial finger at the Obama administration over the Internal Revenue Service’s efforts to shut down political action groups hiding behind the 501(C)(4) tax advantaged entities.

Our tax code requires these groups, both liberal or conservative, to work “exclusively” to promote social welfare. Regulations forbid these groups from functioning primarily for politics.

Many of these groups fraudulently avoid paying taxes and attempt to illegally sway elections. That’s both cheating and unpatriotic.

Wouldn’t it be great if Flake chose to solve some real issues, such as immigration reform and job creation, instead of carrying the right-wing water to rehash disproven conspiracies. Many of us were hoping for a leader to emerge.

Chuck Dunn

Finance advisor, Tucson

Where is responsibility for shooting on border?

Re: the April 11 guest opinion “Border Patrol agents’ use of deadly force is strictly regulated.”

Thank you Gary Meinert for your most informative column on the Border Patrol’s use of deadly force and thank you agents for the job you do in putting your lives on the line every day in an impossible effort to make our border secure.

Tell me though, how there is any justification for shooting a 16-year-old Mexican kid eight times in the back, while he was running away from the border fence. Knowing that the agent had to be next to the wall, aiming through one of the openings in that fence to cause this terrible act to take place.

The fact that the FBI investigation of this incident found no culpability for the agent involved is beyond pale. And remember the friendly fire death of another agent by the weapon of still another agent.

Do you mean to tell me that no one in the chain of command is responsible for that blunder? And why all the secrecy by the agency of all these actions.

Bob Dorson

Volunteer and student, Tucson