Letters to the editor

Journalists should stick to facts

To the editor,

In response to the article in Wednesday's paper regarding Bush's choice of cabinet members: I would simply like to point out a few obvious things about politics that I have gleaned in my few years in this world. Everyone has an opinion, and you know what they say about opinions! This holds true with politics, there is a reason that we are fortunate enough to have a (dominant) two party system. This allows the American people the right to choose if they want to be on the left or the right, (some a little farther left and some a little farther right than others). My point is this: everyone is entitled to the freedom to create their own opinions. In my opinion, it is the job of journalists to provide these people with complete and accurate information in order to allow them to make the best decision possible. The biggest problem with politics and the news is that you only ever see one side of the story. Either you see only the positives and not the costs associated with it, or you only see the negatives and not any of the benefits. In my opinion, a truly noble journalist creates the best situation to allow the reader to decide if they like the candidates selected for the cabinet, not to stuff biased hearsay down their throats with no where to run. A journalist who cannot do this may as well be writing fiction.

Sarah Stubbs

Spiller and Bowles off base

To the editor,

This is in response to the article by Cory "the Left-Winged Angel" Spiller and the ignorant letter written by Michael Bowles. The idea presented by Bowles that the Wildcat is a conservative newspaper is laughable at best. In the years I've read the Wildcat, I have seen nothing but liberal rhetoric and misrepresentation handed to the few Republicans who do make the paper. Bowles writes, "...Republicans will go to promote the welfare of the rich and big corporations at the expense of ordinary labor and the consumer..." showing pure ignorance to what the GOP stands for. First of all, without big corporations, there would be no ordinary laborer. Corporations employ millions of people across the country, allowing those people to make a living and support their families. I don't see how that makes them bad. Wait, I forgot, liberals would rather people be dependent on the government to make a living, rather than to make one themselves. As for the rich, Republicans fight for all people. We don't seek to divide by race, sex or social class. Unlike the Democrats, who run campaigns based on fear and division. This is why Bush's tax cut will cut taxes for everyone, no matter if you make $10,000 a year or $1,000,000. Cutting taxes just for those who "need" it is a horrible idea, because who has the right to determine if you need a tax cut. It is wrong to punish someone just because they are successful, just the same as it would be wrong to punish someone for being poor. Everyone deserves the same treatment, no matter what their social class is, because we are all equal. The government doesn't have the right to pick and choose what people get to keep their money and what people don't. Yes, Republicans fight for the rights of the rich, just like we fight for the rights of all Americans, no matter what your color, sex, or social class is.

Finally, the idea that the Republican agenda would bring us to the dictatorships of South America only proves that Mr. Bowles really is ignorant to what the party stands for. But it could also be just as easily said that the liberal agenda could take us into the left-wing communist governments of Stalin and Castro. That statement holds just as much ground as Mr. Bowles'.

Tony Nelson

Wildcat tearing Bush down

To the editor,

Well, we are less then a week away from George W. Bush being inaugurated, and already the liberals, including most of the Daily Wildcat staff, are trying to tear him down and make the next four years difficult. Let's start with Cory Spiller. First off, in our country it is the electoral vote that counts, not the popular vote. Argument number one of yours is gone. Second, here is the basic problem with liberals: they think that the government made this country great, not the people. Example A, from Spiller's article, "He (Bush) plans to tear down everything Clinton has done." No, the American people did it, not Clinton.

Second, Michael Bowles letter to the editor was uncalled for. Michael, have you ever met Congressman Jim Kolbe? Didn't think so. He is not just my Congressman, but I am proud to call him a friend. Showing his picture on the Wildcat was not our Republican way to give him free press. He is a good man who cares for Tucson and his district. Showing the Congressman in that picture was to illustrate how important Bobbi Olson was to Tucson, not to gain politically. Bush has appointed good people so far to take on very difficult jobs. This is what separates good leaders and bad ones. I look forward to the next four years and feel that we are finally going to have a President that we can all be proud of.

Manuel R. Espinoza

Teaching Assistants need help of Prop 301

To the editor,

I am concerned with a problem facing U of A graduate studies. If all graduate students had their tuition and registration fees paid at the U of A (as they do at most A-1 universities), then they would not find themselves facing the dilemma which I am currently facing. Now is an opportune time for university administration and the Arizona Board of Regents to resolve this problem because of the recent passing of Proposition 301 and the availability of new funds. The administration needs to ensure that all graduate students at the U of A obtain both out-of-state tuition waivers and registration fee waivers, especially in view of the millions of dollars that the U of A will be receiving. The excuse that there is not enough money to provide this assistance to the graduate students is not accurate.

It would be more accurate to say that the U of A is not committed to its graduate students. Graduate student instructors teach a large majority of the undergraduate courses at the U of A. In addition, graduate student research serves to further the reputation that the U of A currently enjoys in the academic community. However, they are not as compensated for their work compared to professionals in other fields. We are losing out on the best graduate students each semester who would come to the U of A, or who have actually been accepted, but who choose to go to other universities (especially other PAC-10 schools) due to the lack of graduate funding at the U of A. The University of California schools have recently been quoted in major national periodicals stating their commitment in recruiting and retaining the top graduate students. The U of A is failing in this regard. Although it is too late to rectify this situation for me and my family, the administration has the ability to make changes to ensure that no other graduate students are faced with a decision similar to mine. Graduate work is stressful enough without the added stress of worrying about how to fund tuition from semester to semester. We are at a crossroads, and some definite action must be taken now before that money is allocated elsewhere.

Mike Insalaco

Spanish and Portugese graduate student

MLK's message misinterpreted

To the editor,

What should we remember on Martin Luther King Day? In his "I Have a Dream" speech, Dr. King said, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." This statement means that in judging other men, skin color should be ignored-that it should not be a factor in evaluating their competence or moral stature.

What has happened in the years following King's murder is the opposite of the "I Had a Dream" quote above. Colorblindness now has been replaced with color preference in the form of affirmative action. No amount of rationalizing can disguise the fact that affirmative action involves implicit or explicit racial quotas.

Taking jobs away from one group in order to compensate a second group to correct injustices caused by a third group who mistreated a fourth group at an earlier point in history (e.g., 1860) is absurd and does not promote justice; rather, it does the opposite. It promotes racism. You cannot cure racism with more racism. Singling out one group for special favors (through affirmative action) ignores the fact that people are individuals - not interchangeable ciphers in an amorphous collective

The rational alternative to racial diversity, focusing on the collective, is to focus on the individual and to treat each individual according to his own merits. This principle should apply in every sphere of life - from business, to education, to law enforcement, to politics. Americans have always abhorred the concept of royalty, that is, granting status and privilege (and, conversely, inferiority and debasement) based on one's hereditary caste, because it contradicts the principle that what counts are the self-made characteristics possessed by each individual. Americans should abhor racism, in any form, for the same reason. On Martin Luther King Day - and every day - we should focus on the proper antidote to racism and the proper alternative to racial thinking: individualism. We need to teach our children and all our citizens to look beyond the superficialities of skin color and to judge people on what really matters, namely, "the content of their character."

Edwin A. Locke,

Management professor

University of Maryland at College Park