Anti-Campaign letter off-base
To the editor,
I was tempted not to finish the first sentence of the letter from Jesse Showalter and Robert Horning in the Oct. 10 Wildcat, because its hyperbole ("We were overcome with cleansing fear and sublime awe.....") was an immediate warning of inferior writing to follow. However, because of my professional connection to the topic- last Friday's launching of Campaign Arizona -I slogged onward through seven paragraphs of cynicism, bloat and an extended, ineffectual military metaphor, all masquerading as satire, hopeful that there might emerge from the bombast a kernel of perception. Unfortunately, I was disappointed, because, in their apparent, self-congratulatory rush to be clever, Mr. Showalter and Mr. Horning forgot to be clear. What was their point? That a campaign to raise $1 billion to improve the University of Arizona is a bad idea? That a campaign to raise $1 billion is acceptable, but it shouldn't be too organized or launched enthusiastically? That they have read Plato? Instead of composing their lengthy, unproductive letter, they would have invested their time far more wisely by contemplating how much the successful completion of Campaign Arizona will enhance the value of their University of Arizona degrees.
Thomas Sanders
Director of Operations, Campaign Arizona
The University of Arizona Foundation
Israel has no other options
To the editor,
Nick Zeckets writes about the truth as if it were quantifiable in terms of bullet points on Microsoft Word. Nick portrays some terrible image of the bully picking on the little guy and then tries to brush it off by stating "it's difficult to understand how deep these issues run." But Nick has no problem forming an opinion that Israel is wrong and that the U.S. only backs Israel because of the large Jewish population in the States. If Nick wants to get the facts straight why doesn't he research them first?
The U.S. backs Israel because of its own selfish needs for a critical strategic point in the middle east. The U.S. wants to ensure that it receives the oil it needs from the Arab nations. Furthermore, Jews make up less than six percent of the population in the U.S., if even that high. How does that constitute a large enough base for the U.S. to qualify national standpoint on the Jews behalf? The dilemma occurring in the middle east is no doubt a devastating one. But instead of Nick burdening everyone with his so called "truth," why doesn't he stop to think about the propaganda behind the people fighting. The Palestinians throw stones, and the media, including Nick want make it seem like the impact of a stone is like throwing rice at a weeding. But let us not forget stones do kill. Imagine throwing a stone at someone 20 feet away from you, what do you think the outcome is? Israel defends itself by, unfortunately, resorting to the use of rubber bullets.
Although this is not preferable, what options are available? Why doesn't Nick, our humble truth seeker, develop a better way of quenching these riots and we'll use his suggestions instead. Criticizing can be real easy when you are not the one forced with making the final decision. I'd like to see Nick be put in that situation and see what his reaction would be. He doesn't even care to empathize with either party. All of the people in that region are suffering the consequences of a horrible mistake produced by past generations. The solution is not for editors and people like Nick to bash one side or the other, it is to understand and work with both sides to develop an agreement. Difficult concessions have to be made and Nick has probably never had to concede to anything in his life. Next time Nick, avoid using the word truth when you're going to subject readers with your obviously biased point of view.
Adi Knishinsky
MIS and finance junior
Fundraising justified
To the editor,
Thursday's main editorial was way off base, and apparently more venting than thinking occurred during its composition. That the UA would conduct a major fundraising campaign is not a symptom of lack of caring for students. It is instead an effort to take advantage of a robust economy and growing national wealth, to allow the university to do more in the face of flat State funding and an effort to keep tuition low. All major universities have high-profile fundraising campaigns from time to time.
As for the "ripped-up campus," the Wildcat might identify for its readers exactly what is being built: a huge new Integrated Learning Center for undergraduate education, and a completely redone Student Union. Expansion of research space has taken a back seat to these justifiably important projects. To serve students in the decades to come the UA must build new facilities for learning and for student life -I t has no choice.
Jonathan I. Lunine
Professor of Planetary Sciences and
Chair, Arizona Theoretical Astrophysics Program
