Monday October 1, 2001

Dale Column refreshing

I would like to congratulate Shane Dale for his commentary on Friday. It's very refreshing to find other people at the UA who have not been brainwashed by the alarmist rhetoric of environmental extremists. The reality is that we as a society do tend to alter the landscapes we touch, but in the grand scheme of things, we don't touch all that much land after all. As an aspiring professional in the mining industry, I often encounter people who think my goal in life is to rape Mother Earth. In reality, however, those of us involved in natural resource development as well as individuals involved in urban and suburban development want nothing more that to meet the needs of our fellow man while being good stewards of the planet. When we do our job properly, everyone wins.

Shane brought some interesting statistics about development to the table in his article, but there is one more that should be noted - more land is currently occupied by freeway interchanges and sewage treatment plants in the state of California than has ever been touched by all mining operations since the beginning of humanity. I hope this gives a sense of scale to all would-be bashers of my often shunned but absolutely essential future line of work.

Jarrett Munkittrick

mining engineering senior

U.S. must not practice pacifism

Patrick Bolger wrote an interesting reply to my recent letter ("We Must Defend Our Nation" on Wednesday), stating "all pacifist organizations I know of have condemned the attack and called for justice."

I would like to ask Patrick what type of justice he is referring to. Although Patrick chose not to elaborate, I assume pacifists would seek a response that does not involve the use or threat of military force.

A good example of such a response would be the criminal investigation we launched after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. In that investigation, we located and imprisoned those who were found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." No one was hurt during the investigation, and we put the guilty people behind bars. We should now ask ourselves: Was our response in 1993 effective? Now that the World Trade Center is gone and 6,000 people have been murdered, I think we have an answer.

If bin Laden was responsible for these attacks, you're dreaming if you think we could bring him in without the threat or use of military force. I understand your passionate devotion to your cause, and respect your beliefs. Even people like me who "think in black and white" (whatever that means) abhor violence and would like nothing more than to see the Taliban turn over bin Laden's network without further loss of life. However, I and less than 80 percent of Americans believe it will require more than words, and are willing to accept those costs to live in a world where we can fly on airplanes and go to work without the threat of being killed.

We need to think carefully about the ramifications of our "war" on terrorism. The terrorists have set the bar awfully high, and if we do not provide an appropriate deterrent, we can expect similar attacks whenever radical political or religious factions wish to be heard. On Sept. 11, we too clearly saw the risks involved in submissive policies, and most of us recognize the need to take more aggressive action to prevent this from happening again.

Eric Jensen

geosciences graduate student

Rec center customer service terrible

Dear Rec Center, classified staff, and student employees,

I've been patient with you long enough. The lifeguard who dozed off in the chair this morning was the final straw. In my four-year tenure as a member, I have witnessed the demise of customer service among your ranks. I have become sickened with your stand-fast policy of charging me $5 whenever I misplace my CatCard (rather than checking my locker room contract), and the blasˇ attitude of every person working behind the pro shop counter.

I encourage each of you to evaluate your situation and insist that you resign if you are unable to effectively service those of us who pay your wages. There are plenty of qualified individuals on this campus who are ready and willing to take your cushy jobs. And who knows - maybe they'll be courteous.

Stefan Walz

Arizona Health Sciences Center

Dale column off base

Thank you Mr. Dale for your number crunching. I can't remember how many nights I've spent trying to compute the numbers myself. Or the countless times I've sat at my airplane window seat, TI-83 in hand, trying to graph my view of the countryside. But now, thanks to you, I have the numbers in hand and no more responsibility.

Now I'll feel no guilt about shooting a bear that wanders into town due to humans' infringement of its natural habitat. Why not? Because I can count that bear in with the 7.8 percent of wild animals it is acceptable to kill in the name of development. The next time a fire breaks out on Mt. Lemmon due to human carelessness, just let it burn with the knowledge that 95.1 percent of our forests still remain intact.

Mr. Dale, our responsibility to preserve nature is not nullified through statistics.

Jeff Grobe

psychology and philosophy senior

Wildcat ad inappropriate

I was not pleased to see another full-page editorial ad in the Wildcat on Friday. This is what the editorial page is for, and just because someone has the money to put out a full-page ad does not mean they should be able to have an entire essay printed. The purpose of the Wildcat's editorial section should be to present varying views on an issue, especially at a time when our community is debating a so-called "war." This is an important issue and so unless the Wildcat is willing to print many more full-page essays in response to the likes of David Horowitz and others who have bought their place, most of whom are not even members of this community, I think you should take a hard look at this policy.

Steven Hubbs

geosciences sophomore

UA should limit enrollment

I am writing regarding the recent articles on the UA's on-campus housing issue and would like to address what the real problem is. The UA struggled with overcrowding in residence halls to the extent where administrators and Residence Life officials have had to ask "Where are all the students going to live, the number of students exceeds the amount of spaces available on campus?"

This question has been raised, and special meetings have been held since 1998 by the Residence Hall Association. And in the summer of 1999 a proposal was brought to and passed by the Arizona Board of Regents to build two new residence halls circa La Paz residence hall. Still, there is no sign of progress in building those residence halls, and over-crowding is an issue that is seen in other areas of the UA.

There is not enough seating for patrons in the student union's food court at noon, and during the hours between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. there are often long waiting times to use the computers. Students are having trouble getting the classes they need since there are not enough seats, and parking spaces are scarce. The residence hall housing crisis is not an isolated case of overcrowding.

The university needs to see the big picture. Although scholarships that require students to live on campus have been considered, proposals to limit upper-class students will create several problems. Not all students can afford to live off campus since paying for utilities and everything else, making their off-campus rooms comparable to living in a residence hall room, often costs a student more money than living. Not all students can afford a car that would provide reliable transportation to and from classes if they live off campus, and if they can drive, where will they park?

The question in the mind of administrators should be: "Is it time to temporarily limit student enrollment until our facilities can reasonably accommodate the increasing number of students?"

A temporary student enrollment cap would give the UA the time to get the over-crowding under control while building new facilities to handle a larger student body.

Vanessa Zirakzadeh

communications junior

Dale column whiny

It's responses like Shane Dale's to the Sept. 11 attacks that demonstrate just how whiny Americans can be. He's nervous that the airlines' increased security is going to infringe on his civil liberties. Well, freedom isn't free, and there are some sacrifices we make for the good of the general public. We have the right to drive anywhere in the United States we want, but there are restrictions: We can't do it at 150 mph, or with our passengers strapped to the hood, or intoxicated. These are limits to protect us and the other people on the roads.

I don't think the new regulations are all that unreasonable. Why the heck do you need a paring knife on a plane anyway? Are those peanuts too big for you? Or what about tennis rackets? Frankly, I was getting tired of all those impromptu tennis games that were cropping up on board anyway. Spending a few more minutes per person before boarding is a sacrifice I'm willing to make. Thousands of people sacrificed a lot more Sept. 11. Women in Afghanistan aren't allowed to read, show skin in public or even fly a kite - and you're fussing over getting a more thorough pat-down at the airline? Maybe once in a while you should appreciate how many opportunities you have here instead of bitching about how intrusive the government is all the time.

I was inspired by how the nation came together after the attacks, and it makes me all that more patriotic and glad to be American. And while we absolutely need to keep tabs on Fourth Amendment and other rights violations, we should also be thankful that we still have the ability and freedom to fly almost anywhere to begin with. Next time, just mail your tennis racket to your destination first.

Ryan Bolin

senior majoring in English