Last week, Germany and the rest of the world celebrated the 20 year anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. This event not only symbolized a physical unification of the country, but also the end of the tyranny and violence associated with it. During the time the wall was up, at least 136 people were killed trying to escape.

Even though Germany gained hope and freedom when the Berlin Wall came down, there are numerous walls throughout the world that still stand, dividing people and creating segregation, misunderstanding, fear and anger.

The West Bank wall, for example, is a barrier that Israel built in order to be protected from Palestinian attacks. The India-Pakistan border is heavily

mined and guarded, allegedly to combat terrorism. And there is the U.S.-Mexico border wall which extends up to a third of the entire borderline. The wall is intended to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country.

These are only a few examples of dividing walls that exist in the world. Some may seem necessary, but are they really fulfilling their purpose? They may give people a sense of safety, which in itself is questionable, but these walls also stand in the way of any efforts made to establish an open flow of communication and conflict resolution.

When children grow up with a wall between them and their neighbors, it is hard for them to even begin questioning

the status quo or wonder if there is anything that can be done to set their generations-old disputes aside and begin working to encourage cooperation and respect.

Tearing down all of these walls might not be the most viable solution to these problems, but we must begin bringing down the psychological walls that are made out of our stereotypes, fears and ignorance. This is the first step towards any chance that we have of making our world one of cooperation, trust and understanding.

Let’s hope that in the future we will all be able to join Germany’s tradition and celebrate the 20 year celebration of other walls being brought down.

CommentaryThe Rattler8 11-18-09www.stmurattlernews.com

Letters to the Editor Policy

The Rattler welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should not exceed 500 words and must include writer’s name, classification, major and telephone number.

Editors reserve the right to edit submissions for length, grammar, spelling and content.

Letters may be delivered to Room 258 in the University Center, faxed to (210) 431-4307, mailed to The Rattler, St. Mary’s University, One Camino Santa Maria, Box 83, San Antonio, TX 78228, or e-mailed to rattlernews@stmarytx.edu.

For more information, call the newsroom at (210) 436-3401.

StandardsThe Rattler upholds the Mission Statements of St. Mary’s

University. The publication follows the Canons of Responsible Journalism, the Associated Press Stylebook and the Student Publication Policy.

The Rattler is a member of the Associate Collegiate Press, the Columbia Scholastic Press Association, the Society of Professional Journalists and the Texas Intercollegiate Press Association.

Contact UsThe Rattler St. Mary’s UniversityOne Camino Santa Maria Box 83San Antonio, TX 78228210-436-3401 / 210-431-4307 (fax)rattlernews@stmarytx.edu

Editor-in-ChiefSarah Mills

Managing EditorDenice Hernandez

Layout/Design ManagerJaime Perez

Copy EditorAlexis Alvarez

News EditorAri Rivera

Commentary EditorLorna Cruz

Features EditorStephen Guzman

Entertainment EditorLuis Miguel Macias

Photo EditorAnalicia Perez

Assistant Photo EditorDavilin Hamel

Advertising ManagerLeo Reyes

Assistant Ad ManagerKatie O’Donnell

Web EditorRoberto Dumke

Faculty AdviserBrother Dennis Bautista, S.M., Ph.D.

The RattlerSTAFF EDITORIAL

Divisions need to fall like the Berlin Wall

Christina WallSophomorePsychology

Grade: A

“This would provide a variety of cheaper, healthier options .”

Rattler report card: Should residence halls have kitchens?

Justin QuirozFreshmanTheology/Sociology

Grade: D

“It would be a huge waste of money since we have the Café.”

A

Daniel AguilarJessica CarilloAmanda CanoChris ChildreeJasmine GarciaLena ScalercioCristina GonzalezLexy KapetanakisSean O’KelleyRobin JohnsonAndrea Magallanez

Veronica MartinezAlonzo MendozaMelody MejiaNancy PerezPaul SaldanaAlex SalinasLena ScalercioAJ SepulvedaCaitlin SkeltonAnnie SwensonDanielle Torres

Nicholas AlfaroAshley ArnoldFelix ArroyoVincent AstudilloGregorio CamachoNicholas CampanaMiriam CruzAlejandra DiazLiliana EspinosaBriana Fantauzzi

Paulina FernandezCaitlyn GeraciRobin JohnsonVeronica MartinezGuadalupe MolinaAndrew RileyAmanda RodriguezEmily ScruggsMichelee Vasquez

Staff Writers

Staff Photographers

Maria FernandezSeniorPolital science

Grade: A

“The cafeteria gets repetitive and I would like to cook. ”

Moses DeLeonSeniorPsychology

Grade: C

“They wouldn’t get used or taken care of and not everyone can cook. ”

Kirk DunlapSophomore English com. arts

Grade: B

“It sounds good, but it might be a fire hazard.”

Kitchens in dorms would cut student spending, save time Cafeterias on college campuses are meant

to be a convenience for students who either do not have enough time or just cannot travel off campus for food. However, when your only options for food on campus are in the cafeteria or Subway, which are always packed with students, many would appreciate an alternative.

I do not know about other students on campus but I am getting tired of eating the same food from the cafeteria for breakfast, lunch and

dinner every day. I like a variety of foods, so a kitchen in the residence halls, or at least one on campus for student use, would be an ideal alternative.

St. Mary’s University is one of the few in San Antonio that does not offer kitchens or kitchenettes in their residence halls. The University of Incarnate Word has 10 residence halls, five of which have kitchens. Seven of Trinity University’s 17 residence halls and three out of four of University of Texas at San Antonio’s residence halls are equipped with either kitchens or kitchenettes for student use.

College students are known for staying up late studying or doing homework and usually get hungry. But of course, the Café is closed. Even when it is open you can end up waiting in line for your order for about 20 minutes, only to end up having to leave to your dorm to eat because the tables are packed. Compare this scenario to simply going back to your room and making whatever you want to eat whenever you want to eat it. This alternative seems much more plausible to me.

If students had the option of utilizing a kitchen then they would be able to have better control of their food choices and in what quantities they consume them. It would also be easier for the vegans and vegetarians on campus to cook things they enjoy instead of resorting to salads and veggie pasta from the cafeteria. It would also be just as easy for the meat-lovers on campus to make a steak or pork chop on a whim.

Some people may argue that having kitchens on campus is a bad idea because it will raise our tuition or we would get charged for the convenience. However, I, for one, would be willing to pay just a little extra if it meant I could cook what I want, when I want.

Read the rest of this article on our Web site and leave feedback. Do you think StMU should have kitchens in the residence halls?

Let The Rattler know!www.stmurattlernews.com

Kitchens: Not worth the extra costs

WEB ARTICLE SNEAK PREVIEW

The idea of having kitchens in the residence halls is an appealing one, but not very practical. Many people might favor the idea and will not agree with me; however, in reality, putting kitchens in the dorms would be a hassle for everyone.

First of all, the residence halls would have to be renovated. Most likely they would renovate over the summer, which would be plenty of time (...) ”

“

Veronica Martinez

Caitlin Skelton

Commentary The Rattler 911-18-09www.stmurattlernews.com

OPPOSING VIEWSTexas Gov. Mark White recently expressed his concern with the risk of sentencing

innocent people to capital punishment. White believes that the state of Texas should reconsider implementing the

Death PenaltyExecution is more humane and can save lives;

lifetime imprisonment not effective.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s recent actions regarding Cameron T. Willingham’s execution has stirred controversy surrounding the use of the death penalty.

The death penalty is the judicial decision to execute a person for an

offense. While there are 15 states that do not practice capital punishment, the vast remainder of the U.S. still supports it. Texas has a reputation for being an avid supporter of capital punishment, which only sustains the stereotype that Texans carry shotguns everywhere and shoot everything.

Supporters of the death penalty claim that it helps society because further crimes by the offender are prevented. However, there are other ways to prevent crimes rather than ending a person’s life. The death penalty borders on barbaric and encourages violence. Life imprisonment is an alternative that guarantees an offender will no longer commit crimes, does not violate human rights and is also much less expensive than an execution.

Executions cost about $2 million per person, according to forensic psychiatrist James Smith, M.D., but it only costs a few hundred thousand dollars to keep the person imprisoned for life. Why is the state spending tax dollars on an action that denies someone their human right to live when it can just as easily imprison them for life without spending as much money?

Capital punishment is a direct contradiction on the inalienable rights of all citizens under the United States Declaration of Independence. Every American knows the famous phrase: “All men are created equal…with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Inalienable is defined as something that cannot be removed from you and is not contingent upon the laws of the land; therefore, one’s own life cannot be taken away despite the fact that they have committed a capital offense. Even the Declaration of Human Rights, which is less known, states that “everyone has the right to life.”

Another argument commonly made by death penalty supporters is that it provides closure for victims or families of victims who have been affected by these capital crimes. By taking the “eye for an eye” approach, Americans are only supporting a culture of violence among themselves and their children.

The U.S. was founded on Christian beliefs and traditions. If Americans really valued this statement, they would realize that the government should stop playing God and stop taking people’s lives.

Killing another human being will not take away the pain they inflicted or bring a victim back to life. It will only continue society’s need for vengeance and make us no better than the criminal. It can even be said that we are criminals ourselves for taking a life that is not ours to take in the first place.

As Americans, we have no right to take something that is not ours, especially when we may never know for certain who is and who is not rightfully convicted. By supporting the death penalty, we are going against every moral we claim to stand for as Americans and we are teaching our children to do the same.

It should be agreed that the U.S. criminal justice system is not built on punishment but on rehabilitation. However, sometimes crimes are committed that cannot be reconciled. These crimes are so grave that the slightest chance of

recurrence cannot be risked. Therefore, for prevention, those who

commit these crimes must be completely removed from society by means of humane execution. This guarantees that the criminal will not repeat the act, forgoing such punitive or inadequate measures as life imprisonment.

On the subject, let’s look at three points of difference between execution and life imprisonment.

For one, a life sentence does not always mean life in prison, which provides the criminal with an opportunity to return to society and repeat the act. Secondly, a “lifer” could potentially escape from prison and commit a similar crime, an impossible scenario with execution. Thirdly, in prison, the lives of other inmates are put in serious jeopardy when a murderer is placed in their vicinity. In fact, 70 percent of inmates are attacked by other inmates each year, sometimes these attacks lead to death; the attendance of violent murderers is likely to increase these instances and the death rate.

For those who argue that execution is inhumane, it can be countered that life imprisonment without parole or release is more inhumane. If rehabilitation is the goal, why are criminals left in prison until

they die? This makes a statement that either some crimes cannot be reconciled or that the criminal justice system is built on punishment.

If it is the former, then why are other prisoners being subjected to, and having their lives put in jeopardy by these irreconcilable criminals? If it is the latter, then detractors should reassess their position that the death penalty is inhumane or that being inhumane is wrong. Rather than putting a troubled soul at ease for the benefit of that person and society, those who advocate punishment in this sense want to inflict pain and suffering. This is inhumane and should not be tolerated.

Some argue that by practicing execution, we are placing ourselves on the same moral level as the murderers. This is false. The murderer kills for the sake of pleasure, the state executes for the sake of prevention. Between five and six lives are saved per execution, according to a 20 year study by Professor H. Naci Mocan of the National Bureau of Economic Research. Does the state not have the moral responsibility to secure innocent lives when further casualties are foreseeable?

Why does Gov. Mark White feel there is a need to rethink the policy of execution? If the accused are not being convicted based on the principle of reasonable doubt, then this is a matter that should be looked into.

But the measures taken for prevention have naught to do with how the accused are found to be guilty. Executions show mercy; they are more humane than punitive measures and they save lives. Executions are central to the maintenance of order and the unhindered progression of our society. For these reasons, execution should remain an open option.

Capital punishment goes against values and rights guaranteed to Americans.

Chris Childree

The U.S. military stares down many foes. We have defeated European powers, rattled sabers with Communists and stormed into rogue countries for our nation’s defense. Yes, we have certainly tackled many threats in our country’s history near and far.

The morale of our military is very important to the head honchos. The military spends a great deal of time and money studying different ways to keep the spirits

of military men and women as high as possible. Morale boosters can come in many forms, from allowing smoking in combat areas to putting a McDonald’s in a base to let the boys and girls in the field have a Big Mac before heading out to spread freedom or whatever it is the U.S. says it is doing.

Morale is so important that serious debates arise over who should or should not serve in the military. The service of women and homosexuals is increasingly condoned, but

only in recent decades. The military especially worries about the effect of homosexuals upon the morale and battle performance of units.

Thousands of homosexuals are discharged yearly under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in which, well, if you say you are homosexual or act it, you have to hit the road. It is an odd system in which homosexuals are allowed to serve and die for their country as long as they are not known to be homosexual.

It sounds perverse because it is. The idea that homosexuals somehow threaten the capability of our armed forces is darkly humorous; something I hope future generations will look back at with a “thank God we aren’t that backwards” smile on their faces. Homosexuals should not be barred from being openly homosexual while serving their country, especially during days when the military needs all the able bodied men and women available, no matter what they do in the bedroom.

We pay to train new soldiers to replace perfectly good ones. After patting anyone discharged on the shoulder and disallowing them from serving their country for sexual preference, we throw down millions of dollars to cover that loss. Why? Well, they were gay and that is bad. Tax dollars are being spent in this idiotic cycle every year for no discernible reason other than conservative thinking.

The disrespect to homosexuals in the military is fiscally and militarily nonsensical while also being unethical. To presume that an openly homosexual or bisexual soldier would be a detriment on the battlefield is ignorantly insulting and refuted by other western countries who allow openly homosexual soldiers to serve without any obvious dysfunctions in their military.

I suppose it slipped my mind during all of this that sexual preference could destroy the sanctity of marriage, our moral society and the capabilities of our military. I await the coming apocalypse after freedom rings for non-heterosexuals.

KennethHowell

www.stmurattlernews.com

Share your view and vote on our online poll.

Visit us today!

‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ military policy needs to be eliminated promptly

Dania Pulido

CommentaryThe Rattler 11-18-09

www.stmurattlernews.com

The dangers of texting while driving have become more and more of a concern for society at large since there has been a significant increase in accidents and

fatalities linked to this practice. For example, in Oxford, England, the British Crown Court has started implementing harsher consequences for those who have accidents while texting and driving. Phillipa Curtis, 22, was recently sentenced to 21 months in prison after she killed Victoria McBryde, 24, by crashing into her car. Police reports said that Curtis had exchanged almost two dozen text messages during the hour before the crash happened.

For the most part, I agree with the kind of attention that British courts are giving to texting while driving. Even though many people may think that texting while driving is doable, it has the potential to cause a great deal of harm to both the driver and pedestrians. Comparing texting to drinking while driving may sound like a long shot, but it definitely has some basis for comparison. It has been proven that texting takes part of your focus away from driving, which is enough reason to say that it should not be done.

Curtis seemed to lead a normal life and has genuine remorse over the fatal accident she caused. Even though I do not completely agree with serving 21 months, I understand that the British courts want to prevent people from falling under the impression that texting while driving is a socially acceptable routine. Just like drinking or being high while driving is not acceptable, texting while driving should not be either.

I know the scenario: you are driving and receive a text message. It stays in the inbox for a while but the periodic beeping drives you crazy. You just have to check it; it will only take a second. After you read it, the only natural thing is to respond.

This seemingly harmless habit can end very much like Curtis and McBryde’s situation did. Curtis never opened the last text before the crash, but took away so much more than what exchanging text messages is worth. Texting did not just take Curtis’ sight and focus off driving— it also took a life. This needs to be kept in mind whenever you are driving or are in the passenger seat. Should exchanging text messages really take the place of being safe?

Don’t drive and text!

Lorna Cruz

CARTOON

In October, the Vatican announced that it has opened its doors to Anglicans who are unhappy with the direction of their religion. The Anglicans will convert to the Catholic faith, but the parishes will retain their Anglican rites and traditions.

A HISTORY OF DIFFERENCES

More than 400 years ago, King Henry VIII of England broke ties with the pope and the Roman Catholic Church to form the Church of England, still their official church today. The Anglican Communion is the International Association of Anglican Fellowship in correspondence to its mother church, the Church of England.

The Anglican and Catholic communities are very similar in how they worship and praise. A key difference is that the Anglican’s leadership comes in the form of the Archbishop of Canterbury as opposed to the pope. It is worth understanding that not all Anglican churches share the same social beliefs, and as a result some Anglican communities have ordained homosexual men, married men and women as priests. Some have also given the blessing of same-sex unions.

Because of these occurrences, a schism within the church is becoming more visible, and the Vatican’s willingness to accept those Anglicans who oppose the

social commercialization of their doctrine is a positive decision concurrent with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

A MODERN CHURCH EMERGESThe first positive outcome that could result

from this decision is the transformation of new churches under the Roman Catholic umbrella. Dissatisfied Anglican congregants can realistically find themselves a new home of worship. This in turn increases membership for the Roman Catholic Church.

The second positive outcome is that vacancies in the Catholic Church’s leadership can be filled by priests and bishops among Anglicans who want to convert. Married Anglican priests will be allowed to convert to Catholic priests; however a married Anglican bishop will not be able to convert to a Catholic bishop.

While the acceptance of married priests has stirred controversy in Anglican and Catholic denominations, the acceptance is a positive component that can bring the Catholic Church into the dawn of a new era that will allow it to effectively adapt with the times under a leadership that encompasses family-oriented values and holds a firm doctrinal stance.

If in time we will find that married priests are indeed as stable, legitimate and genuine as those who are celibate, the preconceived notion of priests as sexual deviants can cease to exist. By breaking down social and doctrinal walls, the Catholic Church is building a larger

oasis of peace amidst an increasingly complex society. Nevertheless, an increase in Anglican leadership will supplement the decreasing number of Catholic clergy.

The third positive outcome targets the origin of the Catholic Church’s name. The term “catholic” means universal. Is the Church moving for an aggregate, unified Christian body? While it appears that the Catholic Church is reaching out more to a distant cousin, there is still the notion that the whole Christian faith, with all of its factions, longs for a unified, cohesive body of believers.

POTENTIAL FOR RECONCILIATIONThis is rooted deeply within the mission of

Christianity. Just as Christ did not reject but instead welcomed those who wanted to listen to the word of God, so too will the Catholic Church welcome and maintain the integrity of Anglicans who are unhappy with the direction of their religion.

Renewed integrity will also uphold a major factor that has been lacking in the spiritual community and is crucial to the understanding of Christ, and that is faith.

Perhaps the Church may succumb to the disparities of a long, lost relative who has overstayed their visit after the emotions of reconciliation wear off. Only time will tell if this new homestead arrangement between the Catholic Church and Anglicans will become an inspiration of brotherly love.

Catholic Church welcomes back Anglicans

Obama boycotts Fox News after criticism to administration

Alex Salinas

10

Despite the fact that one of the U.S.’s army bases was recently attacked by a radical terrorist within our borders, that we are currently fighting two wars and that we are facing rogue regimes armed with nuclear weapons, the Obama administration claims the our true enemy is the cable TV network Fox News.

Obama has led a boycott of the station, preventing members of his administration from appearing on the network’s Sunday Morning show along with other on-air programs, simply because the station has reported

on stories that have reflected poorly on the administration. White House Advisor David Axelrod even went as far as to say that Fox “is not really a news organization.”

However, this rhetoric has backfired. The administration’s attempts to bar Fox from an interview session resulted in resistance from other news networks, and their continued contempt displayed toward

the news organization has been marked by criticism across the political spectrum.

The president’s actions are akin to shooting the messenger. Rather than attacking a news network, perhaps Obama should address the legitimate issues the station has presented: his horrible execution of the war in Afghanistan, his failure to resolve the effects of the recession, his incredible increase of the budget deficit and the corruption rampant in those who surround him.

Obama should take advantage of the network’s large audience to speak to the American people and explain what he intends to do about these issues. In the meantime, he is projecting a childish image that just adds to the ills of his administration.

Hopefully in time, President Obama will focus more on who this nation’s real enemies are, and understand that the attacks on Fox News are attacks on the network’s audience, the bedrock of the U.S.

Chris Childree

Cartoon by Miguel-Eduardo Fuentes