People must have better behavior across the border

Three years ago, I took a Japanese friend to visit some acquaintances in Mexico. As we crossed the border into Sonoita, my friend covered her face with her hand, in shame. What did she see?

UA students returning after Memorial Day weekend. She saw a long line of about 60 cars and RVs, backed up a half-mile. Milling around them were mostly-naked young people, with bright pink or lobster-red, flaking skin, their bellies and breasts hanging out of their swim suits, their eyes red and dazed, their twisted mouths shouting obscenities at each other, their hands carrying cans and bottles of alcohol. One boy proudly proclaimed "How the F* do I know what he was saying? Do you think I know Fx$&ing Spanish or something?" One girl was vomiting on the dry ground. A couple appeared to be having sexual intercourse on the roof of an RV. At the corner of this scene, a Mexican widow took her black shawl and covered her grandchildren's faces as they crossed the street.

Does this all sound like fun to you? If it does, please stay home this year, rent a motel room and watch porn. And if you know someone planning a trip like this, please seriously disable their car the night before.

Mexico, with the highest rate of malnutrition it's had in 30 years, is, unfortunately, addicted to tourist dollars. What they don't need is morality-free college students flaunting their wealth and pissing on their national statues.

S.L. Salomon
Tucsonan

Peterson needs to get facts straight before writing letters

This is in response to Charles A. Peterson's recent letter to the editor titled "Durrani commentary biased" on Monday.

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes Congress to tax the labor of the American people and hand over the proceeds to a foreign government, any foreign government, much less one that has blown up our diplomatic facilities in Egypt and attacked one of our Navy ships in international waters (The USS Liberty). An ally like that ought to come a heck of a lot cheaper than Israel. Israel shouldn't be treated as if it is the 51st state of the United States. Finally, our support of Israel's aggression and cruel treatment of the Palestinians is alienating not only the Arab world but also the entire Muslim world (approximately 1.2 billion people). This hatred will eventually be expressed in the form of terrorism directed at Americans and at American interests. Terrorism is the poor man's way of waging war. The suicide bombings we hear about every day just show how desperate the Palestinians have become over the years of fighting. The results of the recent survey that was taken in the Arab/Muslim nations clearly shows their sentiment toward the United States.

Right now, we give almost $3 billion annually to Israel. Much of that money (American taxpayer money) is used to purchase more military equipment such as U.S.-made F-16's, tanks, rocket launchers, missiles, etc. that are used to dehumanize the Palestinian people. The $3 billion figure doesn't include all the grants and loans that have been forgotten over the years since the creation of Israel. Regardless of what your beliefs are, you must acknowledge that this conflict has gone on for too long, and taken too many lives on both sides. Both the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships have to come together and try to work this out.

Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, asked Ehud Barak, after he beat Benjamin Netanyahu in the election for prime minister, what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian. His honest response angered most Israeli Jews. He said, "I would have joined a terrorist organization." You should take notice that this response comes from the former Israeli Prime Minister, and one of its most decorated generals.

America's blind support of Israel's gross violations of human rights and international law will not only cost us billions of hard-earned tax dollars but eventually American lives, as well. No lobby for any foreign country should be allowed to jeopardize American interests and American lives just to serve the selfish interests of a foreign power. America's government has only one justification for existence to protect the lives and interests of Americans. It's time to start asking Americans, including our elected officials: Which country are you loyal to? If there is a never-ending story in the world, then this is it. Being a so-called "history major," you seriously need to get your facts straight.

A. Kumar
political science junior

Taxpayer money should not fund political campaigns

First, I appreciate that you took the time out of your busy life as a political science major to enlighten us, Ms. Gettinger. I'm glad that your major qualifies you to dispense such information to the general public while my major does not allow such privileges.

The fact is, I am completely aware of where the money comes from for Clean Elections. So don't think you proved anything by telling me. I'm smart enough to make sure I know the facts before I start saying things, unlike others out there. Now let me throw a quote out there for you to digest. Chip Scutari of the Arizona Republic said on Feb. 23, "The newly created Clean Elections Commission, a five-member panel, said it will have about $20 million in its vault to cover the election cycle." $20 million! That's a pretty large sum there. Especially when our very own university is in the midst of a $14 million budget cut. Now, wouldn't you think that $20 million would be better spent in, let's say, education?

My point, as stated before but you obviously missed it, is that taxpayer money, whether by their consent or not, should not be used to fund campaigns. It belongs in a lot of other places. Again, citing the Clean Elections law proved nothing other than the fact that you have no case. I was already aware of the facts of the law and the principle remains the same. The money could be better spent in many other places than in the hands of people running for office. If they can't raise enough money on their own then maybe they shouldn't be running for office.

Pete Seat
theatre arts freshman

Republicans 'have no room to complain'

Even though I am but a peon (aka student) at this university, as well as in this state, I am still entitled to my opinion. I take issue with Shane Dale's Tuesday commentary, "Plazas and Pay Raises: money unwisely spent." I agree with all but the last four paragraphs of the commentary, when Mr. Dale decided to act in typical GOP fashion and blame the woes of the current system on the Democrats. Don't get me wrong, I am as conservative as the next guy, but let's spread the blame equally.

First, at least the Senate is proposing feasible ideas, which is a great deal more than the GOP controlled House can say. The idea may not be the best, but at least they are trying. All the House has done, as Mr. Dale has mimicked, is shout foul at those trying to solve the problem.

Second, Republicans have no room to complain if the Democrats try to use fiscal policy as a means to political gains. This is exactly what the Republicans did last summer with the enormous tax cuts they forced down our throats.

Lastly, to say that the entire battle over the budget, and more specifically the pay raise issue, is completely politically motivated, just makes you less credible. There obviously is some political motivation in the issue, but the intensity of the subject is primarily centered on social and economical ideology.

You have done a great disservice to the conservative cause, Mr. Dale.

Silas Montgomery
undeclared freshman

'Voice of Doom' plagiarized

Things I Hate: People who think they are funny but are really just stealing their material. If I wanted to be entertained by the views on airport security in the "Voice of Doom" from Wednesday, I would just listen to the George Carlin HBO special on my computer. "Voice of Doom" is one of the few comics in the paper that consistently provides something funny, but then again, it doesn't take much if you steal the comedy from far superior comedians.

N.C. Winters, don't take credit for another's ideas, that's plagiarism. Give credit where credit is due ("Clerks").

Justin Bartel
astronomy freshman

Current motto not very patriotic

I appreciated the recent Issue of the Week piece concerning our country's national motto. Unfortunately, almost all of the columnists shifted the argument to one about the separation of church and state. While this is certainly an important issue, I find that even before those concerns, the motto should be representative of the citizens of its country. Kendrick Wilson was the only one to remind us of our nation's first motto, "E pluribus unum." I find this to be a far more patriotic motto than our current one. If others want to place their trust fully in God, then by all means do so. The national motto, however, should reflect "all" of the people of our country because we are, indeed, one from many. And if you read even a little more into it, we are many people, many faiths, many cultures, minds and opinions, and yet we all form one nation. That is our strength, not simple trust in God. Given that the underlying motives for putting the national motto in classrooms is to promote patriotism, we could at least use a patriotic motto.

While on the subject of mottos, I would also like to submit a few mottos for other uses. For the Patriot Act: "Good God, what are they thinking?" For ASUA: "For the love of God, please vote." For the UA library's new floor: "Who in God's name designed this?" For campus religious groups: "Our God, not yours."

John Gruenenfelder
astronomy senior

Criticism to Issue of the Week commentaries

It sure seemed like Laura Winsky was a little confused with all those questions at the beginning of her bantering in her issue of the week commentary. "Whose God? My God? Your God? And just who is represented by we?" Does it matter whose God it is, Ms. Winsky? If they don't believe in one, well that's tough luck. We can't cater to everyone's needs.

Why do you have to start complaining about it? Better yet, Ms. Winsky, is there anything that you do like about this country? Maybe the fact that you are so lucky to be living here and to be allowed to have an opinion, however wrong it may be, about every single issue. I wish you lived in China; you wouldn't make it four minutes.

A quick comment to Mr. Kendrick Wilson, if you will. Mr. Wilson, why don't you know the whole story before you print stuff? It was highly reported that after the Bush-Gore debate in which Vice President Gore talked about that little girl that the principal of the school was called and he said the story was completely false! Al Gore made it up! The principal did state, however, that there were a lot of boxes and such in the school because there was some work being done and space was cramped for a day or two. Mr. Gore, however, took this story, twisted it to make it seem relevant, and then lied on national television.

Get your facts before you start spouting!

Wes Crosetti-Auer
atmospheric sciences freshman

Read the constitution

I find it absurd that anyone would be opposed to putting our national motto in schools across the nation. Why not? People will, of course, respond with the over-used phrase (that) it violates the separation of church and state. Anyone who simply regurgitates this statement whenever a religious topic arises in the political arena obviously has not read the Constitution.

Not once does it mention the words "separation of church and state." The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Now please tell me where in the Constitution it mentions a separation of church and state? Nowhere. The intention of the founders was to make it impossible for a merging of the church (as in the officials and their agenda) with the government, as had been done in England.

They also worded it so that the government cannot establish a single national religion, such as only Christianity or only Judaism, realizing that people not of that religion would be persecuted. So, even if the phrase "separation of church and state" was in the Constitution, it wouldn't even mean separation of religion (in general) and government. "In God We Trust" has nothing to do with the government establishing a religion, for the wording of God is general and broad.

And the next time an atheist objects to this, too bad, unless atheism becomes a religion, which would mean that to not put up an "In God We Trust" sign would be endorsing the absence of God, and therefore would be endorsing atheism, which would bring us all back to where we started.

Dan McGuire
political science and pre-law freshman

Directed to the 'left'

Not too long ago, I remember an issue that was brought up in the Wildcat regarding the treatment of prisoners at Cuba. It was astounding to see that there was a consensus that these prisoners should be given proper treatment as was noted by the Geneva Convention, and should therefore be classified as a POW. There was also a series of questions raised by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle regarding the goal to the War on Terrorism. Here is a brutal reminder of what those who defend the prisoners at Cuba, and Sen. Daschle should take a perspective on.

During the course of the day Wednesday, it was learned that an American Navy SEAL who fell from a helicopter Sunday evening when it came under enemy attack in Afghanistan during an infiltration mission was captured and shot to death by al-Qaida fighters. Yet, during the course of this same day, nobody on the liberal left, or the media, mentioned any outrage about this incident. Heck, there was more cover page about the Wall Street Journal reporter than there was about this incident. However, those same groups who have defended the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the so-called civil rights and human rights groups, have not said so much as a word about the cold-blooded killing of the Navy SEAL. Yet the prisoners at Cuba get three meals a day, get to read their Koran, and even get free medical treatment!

Allow me to take this into perspective; the al-Qaida don't take prisoners, they don't comply with our Bill of Rights or the Geneva Convention. They don't even believe in military commissions over there. They just execute our soldiers, not to mention our journalists. Now, is there anything balanced about this?

As for Daschle, what transpired in the 48 hours after Daschle demanded to know when the war was going to end, how much it was going to cost, how would we know if it was successful, etc.? What happened was a firefight that took the lives of nine of our men, including one that was murdered. So now he's backtracking, exactly as should be expected, and he wants us to know he's unified with the effort. It just infuriates me when I see this.

As stated earlier, Daschle asked when the war was going to end. The War on Terrorism will end when we get rid of these barbaric, inhumane neanderthals. Now the question that should be posed to those on the left, such as Daschle, and the many civil and human right groups, is: are you up to this task?

Stephen W. Bieda, III
atmospheric sciences junior

More surveillance needed for campus parking garages

I couldn't help but notice that car theft and vandalism seems to be rampant on the UA campus. I had some time to kill in the parking garage last night, and while I was there, I observed a blue emergency light in every corner of the garage, yet only one black bubble in the ceiling, which may or may not have contained a security camera, located next to the cash window.

Now, take a minute and think about all the Wildcat Police Beats you've read. Number of car thefts/vandalisms reported: probably about one or two a day. Number of ticket office robberies reported: zero. How many of those articles end with "No witnesses were reported?" Now maybe there are cameras in the garages, so well-hidden I couldn't find them, or maybe parking lot surveillance violates someone's rights or some other obscure reason it hasn't been done yet; I'm not thoroughly researched on the topic. It's just an observation.

Tyler Pritchard
political science sophomore

Use correct grammar when critiquing Wildcat copy chief

The only "travesty" in last week's Wildcat was on the letters page. Chad Schneider, if you're going to write a letter criticizing the copy chief, you might want to check your own copy first: The ellipses are out of place; "that" should really be "who"; and in the penultimate sentence, I'm not sure what "it" refers to.

William Dane
senior majoring in English

Treat athletes with same standards as all students

When I received my housing assignment last summer, it said that Pima, La Paz and Yuma accepted very few freshmen. Well, at least they picked winners like basketball player Will Bynum. According to the Wildcat's Police Beat, Bynum, a freshman resident at La Paz, was caught with a B.B. gun in his room. Please, UA hierarchy, take a stand. My girlfriend cannot have a toaster in her dorm room; don't let Bynum go unpunished for having a gun in his.

Fine him or suspend him for a few games - and certainly look into the broken window situation. I understand that offering an athlete what is arguably the best dorm on campus is a nice recruiting tool, but he has abused his privilege. Stop letting athletes enjoy different rules and make Bynum an example.

William Bihn
computer engineering freshman