Babbitt not good for Arizona
To the editor,
I am writing in response to Jessica Lee's Jan. 23 commentary, "Bruce Babbitt-The Land-Grabbing Arizonan Hero." It epitomizes the general public's lack of understanding of our country's land management policies and their relationship to both the economy and the environment. Over the past eight years, the Clinton-Babbitt team has successfully locked up nearly two million acres of public land. The justification for these actions has included everything from protecting land sacred to Native American tribes to preserving endangered species habitat. These in themselves are very noble goals. Indeed, no politician in his or her right mind would dare speak out against such action. Unfortunately, numerous problems begin to arise when you look at the big picture. Federal lands are typically locked up to prevent mining, ranching, or logging from taking place on them. In ecologically sensitive areas, this can easily be justified. So why on earth would anyone want to mine, ranch, or log in the first place? The answer is that our society requires vast amounts of minerals, forest products, and livestock to keep ourselves fed, clothed, housed, and educated. These too are very noble goals. So what exactly does happen when "our" government blocks proposed mining, ranching, or logging activities by locking up lands? The answer is simple. These activities move outside our borders to countries with little or no environmental regulation. The honest truth is that the United States now has some of the most stringent environmental laws in the world. This is why we should embrace traditional land-based economic activities. If we do not, someone will still satisfy our society's demand for food and raw materials. The difference is, they will probably be cutting down a rain forest or dumping untreated chemical waste into a pristine river to do it.
Jarrett Munkittrick
Mining Engineering senior
Society allows Hooters-type enterprises
To the editor,
I am responding to Mr. Salcido's gross ignorance in reference to Ms. Winsky's editorial commentary. This demonstration of masculinist mentality is a classic example of blaming the victim. "We wouldn't have Playboy if it weren't for the girls posing!" Let's discuss. Playboy would have no business if it were not for those who purchase these magazines. It is the women who are objectified and diminished to mere objects for the male whim and sexual gratification. Once again, it becomes our problem because we allow women to do so? Of course, as we are the ones who carry the social power and influence to incite such a change. The view is nice from the cheap seats Mr. Salcido. For one who is not socially bought and sold as a commodity based not on who they are but how big their chest is, it is simple to say "I don't think it would be so bad to be a sex object." Again, Hooters would have no business if society (not just women) allowed this enterprise to find common place in our culture. Mr. Salcido should educate himself. I do not feel it is men's fault this phenomena occurs, but I certainly do not find it appropriate to blame women for their own objectification. As long as these ignorances continue, I find articles like Ms. Winsky's timely and appropriate.
Kate Vesely
Political Science senior
Women not victims of sexist ads
To the editor,
When reading Laura Winsky's commentary, "No Way To Ignore These Breasts" in Monday's issue, I was compelled to take notes in the margins of the story. As a woman, I too do not feel that the hundreds of demeaning images of women in the media are putting women in their best light. However, I think it is inexcusable to write a commentary which declares the women in these ads as "victims." The women choose to appear in these advertisements. Furthermore, why would the marketing department of any successful company like Hooters choose to put an advertisement in front of their business? The name on their building does enough advertising for that part of the town. The location of the Hooters billboard is strategically placed in a high traffic area. Who is the audience for this ad? Any male hungry for sports, appetizers and women dressed in tight clothing. Mostly every man I know. Secondly, is Winsky appalled because the billboard is trying to catch attention with half dressed women? Winsky's article used the same tactic with the use of the word "breasts" in large, bold font. Honestly, that word was the sole reason I stopped to read your commentary. Finally, even though you claim to not be "a friend of censorship," complaining of these ads is supporting censorship. This past summer was the first time I had the opportunity to travel in Europe. One of the first things I noticed during my taxi to the hotel was a billboard of a naked woman, giving a clear picture of the front and back of her body. It was advertising body lotion. I can't imagine this type of ad appearing anytime soon in our country. However, when these risquŽ adds do start popping up on our city streets, I do not look forward to reading about some woman's outrage in our university's student paper.
Korey Jastrzab
Physiology senior
