ASUA editorial hypocritical

I personally find it odd that the Wildcat is claiming that the majority of the ASUA Senate candidates are incompetent and don't have real platforms, yet for some reason the Wildcat (endorsed) 10 candidates. It seems well implied by the editorial on Tuesday that many fewer than 10 of the students running are qualified for that position. Why then will the Wildcat endorse candidates who are not qualified for their position? While, regardless of qualification, 10 students will be elected tomorrow. Logic would state that if six candidates are qualified, then they and they alone should be voted for, but by endorsing other not qualified candidates, it will make it a much closer race and possibly limit the qualified persons elected.

The Wildcat, of all parties involved publicly on campus, should understand its influence on students. It is the most-read publication on campus and most circulated. This is a critical time for students; while the Wildcat looks poorly upon the limited voting during the primaries (an election that was more of a popularity poll than an election) it goes ahead and tells us that few of these candidates are capable of holding this office, yet will still endorse some who are not. It is my take on this matter that if the Wildcat means to do anything in the political arena, it should either list an unbiased comment about every candidate, or only endorse those that it feels fit for office. The Wildcat, with its almost monopoly on student media, should take more responsibility toward these elections. After all, it has possibly the greatest sway with the voters.

Michael Peregrim
political science freshmen

Mideast situation 'much more complicated'

We read the article in Friday's Wildcat regarding the situation in the Middle East. Ms. Durrani compares Ariel Sharon to a playground bully. Unfortunately, the situation is much more complicated then that.

Ms. Durrani wrote the very true statement that Sharon declared Arafat irrelevant; however, one must consider why Sharon made this declaration. Yasser Arafat is the "elected" leader of the Palestinian people, and polls show that Arafat does enjoy widespread popularity amongst his people. However, if he enjoys such widespread popularity, why is it that militant organizations under his control, such as Fatah and the al-Aqsa brigade defy his repeated call for a ceasefire? The attacks this Saturday in Jerusalem show that either he has no control or influence over these organizations, or he chooses not to use his influence to prevent these attacks. Conducting negotiations with a leader who is obviously not in control of his own organization is futile, hence he is irrelevant to the peace process. Ms. Durrani also failed to note that Israel is not the only country in the world who will not meet with Mr. Arafat.

Ms. Durrani wrote that there is a distinction between Hamas and Fatah, who she claimed, "tries to bomb Israeli military forces." However, we would like to point out that the facts contradict this statement. The attacks last Saturday against orthodox Jews returning from Synagogue were carried out by members of the al-Aqsa brigade, which are under Arafat's control. Clearly, this is not a military target.

Israel, at this moment in time, considers itself to be at war against those who want to destroy the state of Israel, much like America considers itself to be at war with terrorism. When Israel launches attacks in the occupied territories, it must be noted that Israel is not attacking civilians, but rather those who are directly involved with militant organizations and who perpetrate these terrorist attacks against Israelis. Therefore, we do not believe it is fair to classify these Israeli attacks as terrorist actions, for if you did, it would also be necessary to classify the U.S. incursion in Afghanistan as an act of terrorism.

In conclusion, before you put pen to paper regarding the Middle East, consider the facts of this situation, and consider the enormous complexity of the situation. Israel has but one demand: that the violence stop. If the violence stops, negotiations will resume. Let us hope for that day.

Jeremy Slavin
political science junior
Charles Givre
computer science and music performance senior

Reconsider Alumni Plaza

Over the past few months, I have noticed numerous letters in the Wildcat denouncing the plan to build the Alumni Plaza. Not once have I read a letter that expressed support for this proposal. I am wholeheartedly opposed to the plan to build this so-called "park." The reasons to abandon this plan far outnumber the advantages.

First of all, I am sure that most UA students are tired of the constant construction on campus. I want to be able to enjoy the scenery of the campus and hear the birds as I walk to class; what I see now are barren construction areas and what I hear is the incessant rumble of tractors and cranes. I will not even begin to talk about how much of a hassle it is to maneuver through the maze of construction sites around campus. I admit that the end result is appreciated, but let's focus on what the UA really needs.

Finances are another major disadvantage of this project. Budget cuts have had resounding impacts on all aspects of the UA. If the Alumni Plaza is constructed, millions of dollars that could have been used much more efficiently will be poured into this "park." If the Alumni Association really wants to help in making the UA a better place, help lower growing tuition costs, ease employee layoffs and give the students an opportunity for a better education.

Members of the Alumni Association, please reconsider your plans to construct Alumni Plaza. Use this money where it will be more beneficial to the UA community. Your efforts have helped the UA in so many ways over the years, please continue to keep in mind what matters most: education.

Akash Arora
engineering freshman

Wildcat delivery sucks

What's wrong with the Wildcat delivery people? I thought that the papers were supposed to be delivered to the newsstands by 7 a.m. I don't know what's changed, but lately I haven't been able to find a Wildcat on campus until 9, sometimes 10 a.m. Did the Wildcat decide to let the delivery drivers sleep in?

I have 8 a.m. classes. I can't sleep in and wait for my Wildcat! I have to go to class. Do you expect me to listen to lectures? No, I need my Wildcat. Class is so much more boring without my Fast Facts and the crossword. There are employees at this university who couldn't make it through the day without the Wildcat.

So this is my call to action. Delivery drivers, set your alarm clocks! We need you! America needs you!

Jim Gronowski
management information systems junior

Don't recycle your Wildcat

I am responding to Autumn Kline's article urging UA students to recycle their Daily Wildcats. I proudly throw my Wildcat in the trash every day, and the reason is this:

The logic she is applying goes something like this, I assume: Paper is made from trees. Why not make new paper from old paper and save trees from being cut down. Actually, that doesn't work. Supply meets demand. If, for whatever reason, we were to stop making bread from wheat, there would be less wheat in the world one year from today, simply because there would be no demand to grow it anymore. The same logic applies to the relationship between paper and trees. In the paper industry, 87 percent of the trees used to make paper are planted in advance specifically for the use of making paper. If supply met demand with recycling, the need to grow those trees would diminish, and there would be less trees being grown. So, for every 13 trees you "save" from recycling, 87 will never get planted. It is because of the demand for paper that the number of trees has actually been growing in the country in the last 50 years (contrary to the nonsense you learned in elementary school).

Your lesson is this: If your goal is to maximize the amount of trees, don't recycle. How about the argument that we are running out of landfill space? That's not true either. If all the solid waste humans make for the next 1,000 years were put into a single space, it would take up about 44 miles of landfill space, a mere .01 percent of the U.S. landscape. Also, recycling newspaper causes a great deal of pollution. Recycling newspapers requires old ink to be bleached off of the pages, which requires an expensive chemical process that causes a great deal of toxic waste. This toxic waste is far worse for the environment than newspaper being thrown away.

So, after you read this article, save the planet, save the trees, stop pollution and throw that paper in the trash!

Kevin Durkin
marketing junior

Glad to leave ridiculous school

Less than three months to graduate and counting. As I read the headlining article in the Tuesday issue of the Wildcat, I found myself counting down the end of my stay here at the UA with much greater eagerness. I can't wait to get out. During my four years at this university I have witnessed a disturbing trend of ever-growing greed and avarice by the faceless, often nameless controllers of pocketbooks, gleeful spenders and quick-fingered budget-slashers.

The biggest news on campus is pay raises and budget cuts, tuition hikes and the ever-important question of how this university will ever be able to afford shiny new workout equipment for the Rec Center. My focus in this letter is the disgusting debate over increasing tuition. I say disgusting because the quoted UA Provost George Davis wants to double tuition to put the UA on a "level playing field" with other universities. I want to know how this administrator defines a level playing field. By denying access to higher education?

Of the few perks there are in attending this institution, affordable tuition is number one. But most students would agree that the university definitely takes it back between the cost of parking permits, cost of books, cost of printing (!) in the library and soon the computer labs, money automatically taken for use of the Rec Center (whether you use it or not), the list of complaints goes on.

The administration touts the excuse of a "budget crunch" for this proposed tuition hike; I walk onto campus every day to be greeted wherever I go by multi-million dollar construction projects, grossly out of proportion for the actual needs of the student body, and I find myself curiously lacking in sympathy. The ability to attend an institution of higher learning should never be granted only to the wealthy; I think all would agree. By even submitting the suggestion to unnecessarily raise the cost of learning is an elitist, intolerable gesture. I take no pride in graduating from this university, I wear no team logos, I put no stickers on my car.

When I am asked where I graduated from, I'll have to admit with regret that I received my degree from an institution more interested in padding wallets and collecting prestige than in improving the education and ensuring the success of its student body.

Juliette Parker
Spanish linguistics senior