Tuesday October 16, 2001

Wall of Expression should be displayed

Kudos to the Opinion Board of the Arizona Daily Wildcat for their insightful editorial of Oct. 12! I heartily agree that the "Wall of Expression" must be reinstated to a prominent place where all interested persons can read and reflect on its contents.

The events of Sept. 11, as well as the response to these terrorist attacks have become defining moments in history - not only for this generation, but for the next as well. They are not simply more fuel for the nightly news, soon to be forgotten as people get back in gear with their personal lives. It was a grave tragedy that has touched many, many lives. It will shape the future of this nation for years to come.

Because of the nature of this tragedy, it is of utmost importance that our freedom of expression be championed. This is why our "Wall of Expression" is so vital. Not only is it a reminder of the events of Sept. 11, it is also a reminder of our response to the tragedy, in all its raw emotionalism.

We, the students, created the "Wall of Expression." We have a right to view it and to display it before the entire Tucson community!

Marie Lynn

journalism sophomore

Newfound patriotism baffling

While the events of Sept. 11 are arguably the most tragic ones in our nation's young and fragile history, I do find the American public's reaction with all the "instant" patriotism to be somewhat baffling. Where has all this sentiment been since 1776? Why only now are we seeing Old Glory flags, shirts, and temporary tattoos emblazoned everywhere and "God Bless America" on any type of signage?

So I gather it takes an event of this magnitude for us to put aside our MTV, Abercrombie and Fitch, and binge drinking every night to open our eyes and stand tall and proud? Put it this way - flags and other patriotic behavior were practically non-existent Sept.10 and earlier. This type of heightened unity and altruistic emotion has its place in our society day in and day out, regardless of what transpires and how many innocent lives are destroyed!

Just for the sake of analogy, is it logical to conclude that when the first signs of the Antichrist show, sales of bibles will go through the roof and only then crosses will start to hang from cars, homes, and businesses? As they say, only in times of need.

Michael Hojjatie

media arts graduate student

Protests uncivil

The protest last Friday about saving religious Native American sites and red squirrels demonstrated two precarious items. I witnessed the events that unfolded that day and got the impression that the demonstrators and their supporters do not comprehend the difference between constitutional rights and breaking and entering.

First, the demonstrators broke into a lab and hurt a few people. You can bet I was out there applauding when these criminals were being arrested. If people honestly feel the need to picket and protest, then I advise you to please follow the lead of Gandhi and Martin Luther King and practice civil disobedience. Do not commit crimes and then decree them justifiable by the constitution.

Secondly, and equally troublesome to me, was the fact that this protest turned out to be like most liberal events. Instead of staying on topic and demonstrating for the sake of protecting Native American sites, fanatic, socialistic anarchists chose to protest for their causes at the same event; one girl's shirt actually said something about ending national borders for peace. This was really deplorable and a slap in the face to the Native Americans. Next time, I hope respect will be taken into consideration for all parties involved.

Charles A. Peterson

history sophomore

Protestors do offer viable alternatives

Michael Galhouse's letter to the editor (yesterday) claims that the peace protesters offer no viable alternative to the war in Afghanistan. But he (among others) is just not listening. I am speaking as one peace protestor, but I'm fairly

confident I speak for many if not most. The war will not only kill innocent civilians in Afghanistan, but it will also make the situation much more dangerous here in the US by waking up sleeper cells and adding many, many more to Bin Laden's minions. If not today, then tomorrow, or next week, or next year, or later. We won't know when. Fighting terrorism with missiles is like trying to destroy an Africanized bee hive with a kitchen knife.

So for me, stopping the war is in itself a strategy against terrorism.

Furthermore, the US government is already taking many non-belligerent steps besides its war to prevent further terrorist attacks. I agree with most of these with three exceptions. First, increased surveillance activities should focus only on terrorism (i.e., not protestors), should have a time limit (e.g., five years) and should have increased Congressional oversight committees to prevent abuse. Second, the US should be putting more effort into its non-belligerent strategies (e.g.., freezing secret bank accounts that fund terrorism).

And third, we should focus on legal means to bring any and all terrorists to justice (e.g., the UN). It's pretty obvious that those who criticize the peace protesters for having no viable alternative to the war in Afghanistan are sadly mistaken, as proven by the additional non-belligerent strategies that their very own government is taking, and by the alternatives we've been offering all along. They are refusing to listen to the peace protestors, or they erroneously see the situation as black and white (i.e., war vs. inaction), or both.

Patrick Bolger

graduate student in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching