Tuesday October 2, 2001

Dale column flawed

I am disappointed no one responded to Mr. Dale's factual commentary with a further look at the facts. He correctly states that the NRI survey counts 5.2 percent of our land as developed. He also lists how 21 percent of the land is owned by the government (and I assume he believes safe and untouched). But what about the rest? Twenty percent is cropland and 5 percent is pastureland. Last I checked farms were "touched by man." I am from Ohio, where a squirrel could once cross from Pennsylvania to Indiana without touching the ground. Today 54 percent of it is pasture and cropland. Twenty-seven percent in Ohio and 21 percent nationally are listed as forestland, by their definition

"A land use that is at least 10 percent stocked by single-stemmed forest trees of any size which will be at least four meters tall at maturity." WOW! Four meters and that 10 percent, I hope the squirrels can jump.

Twenty-two percent of the country is rangeland. "This would include areas where introduced hardy and persistent grasses... are planted and such practices as deferred grazing, burning, chaining, and rotational grazing are used, with little or no chemicals or fertilizer being applied." "Planted," "grazing," "burning" and "little pesticide" doesn't sound like untouched to me.

Mr. Dale is right about one thing - the facts are not really necessary. I too have flown over this country and looked down. You know what I see? Green fields stuck in every possible place, including Arizona, irrigated with water from rivers and lakes states away. Agriculture is not nature; it might as well be concrete. The animals that once lived there are dead and gone so as to make room for our food, hardly untouched or undeveloped.

Todd C. Neumann

Economics graduate student

Wildcat should be applauded

The Arizona Daily Wildcat should be applauded for printing a fellow American patriot's paid-for advertisement. I met David Horowitz in Santa Barbara, Calif., Saturday, and he confessed that too many university newspapers refused to publish his ad. Those universities that did not publish Mr. Horowitz's ad reflect the horrible tradition of anti-Americanism brewed at our nation's colleges. The University of Arizona should be proud that it protects the right of freedom of speech and preserves the American tradition of capitalism: the foundries of our great nation. Thank you, Arizona Daily Wildcat, your promotion of American values will not be forgotten.

Christopher S. Marcum

Sociology sophomore

Freshmen should have priority

The residence hall situation for freshmen at the UA is ridiculous. The freshmen should have priority over everyone else to live on campus because they need this opportunity to make their transition into college easier and more comfortable. They should not be placed into unheard-of living arrangements such as hotels or rooms not designed for living. My younger sister is a freshman in college, and if she was assigned to live in a hotel, a study room or especially a maintenance closet, I would be furious.

You would think that sophomores and upperclassmen living on campus would be more courteous to the newcomers at our school and let them live in the dorms. However, they are still trying to have priority over the incoming students. I think the best solution would be to have the Residence Hall Association president, Ben Bush, and the rest of his staff try living in a study lounge for a month and then come up with a reasonable agreement. This way they would know how absurd the idea of letting returning students have residence hall priority over incoming students really is.

Lisa Greisiger

Political science junior