Caufield's column off-base
How to begin my response? I'll start with the praise of the fine institution of Michigan State University. They did their best and found an ignorant person to head up their sports-writing department. Kevin Caufield should recheck his numbers. Arizona beat Illinois twice this year, not once. If I remember right, I attended a basketball game where a soon-to-be National Championship basketball team lost to....uh - who was it - oh, it was Arizona. Yeah, it was in Tucson, but surely for such a superior athletic program such as MSU they shouldn't lose to such an "inferior" program as Arizona, even in Arizona.
Oh yes, about his comments about the sun here in Arizona - the sun sometimes does shine on a dog's ass, but lightning doesn't usually strike twice - we beat Illinois twice this year. And a little geography lesson....class, let's say it together: "There are no beaches in Arizona."
And the majority of our players are not from California, with a few exceptions. Try telling Edgerson, Gardner or Wright they have lived pampered lives in the sun. By the way, I love his mentioning of such hard-nosed cities such as Flint and Saginaw - whew, those cities are nationally known for their hardships. The most important thing to analyze is the superiority of MSU. While three Final Fours in a row is amazing, I don't think that they usually raffle them away as they did for MSU this year. First a 16 seed, then a nine seed - the best-seeded team MSU has played - a 12 seed and an 11 seed. There are two things I am thankful for - one, that I don't look like Kevin Caufield (nice scriz on your chin buddy), and two, I'm not ignorant and have the ability to respect achievements of opponents, whether they beat us or not.
Oh, and I'd like to see Caufield's school try and beat us in golf...not a chance.
Ryan Voorhees
marketing senior
D'Angelo deserves another race
I am writing in response to Erica Rocush's letter titled "D'Angelo should withdraw from race." In the letter, Erica Rocush states she has "been following with some interest the election fiasco surrounding the executive vice president." This I assume is in reference to the appeal D'Angelo underwent for the administrative vice president position.
Rocush goes on to slander D'Angelo to the effect that he should withdraw from the race, citing a possible fight and impeachment proceeding. Why should the senate hold precedence over a decision handed down by the Supreme Court?
On the day of the election, the Wildcat endorsed D'Angelo as their candidate for administrative vice president. He had proven himself to the Wildcat to be a superior candidate to Tricia Williams. Now, after D'Angelo's disqualification and appeal, he must undergo further political slander by Rocush. Erica Rocush is most definitely allowed her own opinion. However, if Rocush had put so much interest into the election, she should have at least known what position Brandon D'Angelo and Tricia Williams were running for - administrative vice president, not executive vice president, as her letter incorrectly states.
Throughout the appeal process, I have read that Tricia Williams and Joe Rogers both stated Brandon D'Angelo ran an unfair campaign. Apparently not so unfair that he should not be allowed to run for administrative vice president, as Rocush would hope. This race is again on even ground, and as Tricia William's supporters fear, it is far from over.
Tyson Swetnam
ecology and evolutionary biology senior
Cutting tobacco ads not a solution
I read in a recent Wildcat that "Tobacco (is the) No. 1 killer of women." In this article by the Associated Press, I read of a national goal to cut female smoking in half by 2010. As I was reading, I thought: "Okay, not a bad idea," until I read that the only way to accomplish reducing the number of women who smoke is by a "major change" in the tobacco industry's marketing. This is where people are focusing on the wrong things.
Let's take hypothetically that the tobacco industry can no longer advertise anywhere in America. Cigarettes are still allowed to be sold, but no advertising in magazines, billboards or sponsoring public events is allowed. There will still be those who smoke, yet there is sure to be a drop in the number from today's current numbers. Then the majority of people no longer smoke.
What happens when a population moves into your nice, quiet community that does smoke? They will be blamed for the increase in smokers; they will be outcasts just because they bring in a "bad influence."
From my experience, the advertisements on TV offering realities of smoking are so much more powerful and influential to those who have not begun to smoke than simply reducing the number of paid advertisements accessible to young and easily influenced persons. People need to spend their time and energy worrying about those close to them, helping them deal with the bombardment of the real world. Spend time helping others understand. Don't just simply shield impressionable minds, educate them.
Jordan Shoor
elementary education and political science junior
