Monday October 29, 2001

Dale writes with foot in his mouth

Nice article, Shane. I've got to admit, you couldn't have put population control in a more inflammatory light. Now, please allow me to stick that foot of yours back in your mouth.

For years, Shane, I've been under the impression that conservatives just plain chose to ignore the gray areas of issues. It must take less energy to adopt one extreme or the other without actually thinking about them, right? After reading your attempt at right-wing editorializing, I realized something. It isn't that conservatives simply choose to not see things in either black or white, it's that you just can't.

Take your nice, little article about environmentalism for example. First, you state oh-so-intelligently, "How foolish is it for environmentalists to decide who enjoys this planet's environment and who doesn't, simply because they were born before others?" Shane, my apparently ill-informed friend, it's because environmentalists are thinking about future generations that we do what we do. "Saving the Planet" isn't just some catch phrase invented by an antiquated hippie tree-hugger - it's probably the most important cause that we can fight for.

We fight to save the rainforests, national parks and the environment because, contrary to being "self-serving wackos," we want to preserve these places for future generations, not assure that we are the only ones that can enjoy them. If we truly had that mentality of self-interest that you speak of, then we would act like your conservative peers and rip up the rainforest for cattle grazing, destroy the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge for oil and allow absurd amounts of carbon dioxide into the already well-polluted atmosphere, all the while turning a blind eye to the catastrophic effects of global warming.

If we didn't think about future generations and our responsibility to them, like you assert, then we would be preoccupied with, as you put it, "enjoying our gorgeous planet" and in the process denying the biggest responsibility to our children, the Earth.

Next time, Shane, before you write about something that you know nothing about, do some research beyond closed-minded thought and ignorance. I feel bad for you though, it must be hard trying to refute with your foot in your mouth and your head up your ass.

Vince Vanasin

communication major

UA should start registration over

It has recently come to the university's attention that there has been a grievous error in the current registration process for the Spring 2002 semester. Due to a system-wide computer glitch, students who were supposed to have priority registration were blocked from registering for multiple classes to which they should have had access. As a result of the error, some students were unable to get classes they sorely need in order to graduate - even though these students were organized enough to register in a timely manner.

Now, although the heinous glitch has been fixed, some key classes are full, and those students who were supposed to be given first crack at registering are shut out of the process. So what needs to be done?

Clearly, forcing professors to let all students into their classes is not the answer, especially with budget cuts reducing the number of TAs in many classes. There remains only one equitable and just solution: Start registration all over again from the beginning. Think about the alternatives - none make more sense than the simple yet elegant solution that probably should have been employed in our most recent presidential election.

Brian Burke

psychology graduate student

Safe Ride system flawed

Two nights ago, my girlfriends and I were around McClelland Hall late at night (but still during SafeRide operating hours), and we wanted a ride back to our dorm, Kaibab, because we didn't feel comfortable walking the whole way home at around 11:30 p.m.

When I requested for a safe ride, they denied me because there were four girls total and the girl on the phone said that that isn't a safety issue. How can that be? I know SafeRide has sedan cars that can accommodate the four of us, and even if we may have been four girls walking together, that would not stop a guy from coming and attacking us at night. After all, it is approximately a 15-minute walk through side streets, which gives ample time for any type of danger to harm us.

I feel that Safe Ride should re-think their regulations because after all, isn't their job to look out for the safety of UA students? Well, if they come up with such rules and deny our service, then how effective are they being: By doing that, they are putting the students in a position where they will be open to danger, especially four girls. Thanks for your time, and hopefully somehow this issue will be addressed.

Roopa Batni

undeclared freshman

Dale column offensive

I strongly disagree with many of the statements made by Shane Dale in the "Save the planet: have an abortion" commentary in Friday's Wildcat. I don't consider myself a left-wing environmentalist, but I'm very concerned about the world's population growth and found some of the remarks in the editorial downright offensive.

Mr. Dale, I ask you to consider this: You were born in the world's most economically prosperous country and haven't personally experienced any effects of the world's current overpopulation problem, so to you, it's a non-issue. Had you been born in any of the desperately poor, overcrowded, polluted third-world countries, I imagine that your perspective might have been different. Uncontrolled population growth has already caused a lot of misery and suffering around the globe, and is the root cause of most environmental problems, not the least of which is global warming. You claim that those who consider overpopulation an important issue "love everything about Earth, except people," but the well being of people is precisely why this problem needs to be addressed.

Would you rather have 5 billion happy, well-fed people, or 10-20 billion miserable and desperate people living in slums that most of the planet will be turned into? The "self-serving wackos" you referred to are trying very hard to ensure that future generations can have the same living conditions you're now enjoying, and their efforts should be commended, not ridiculed.

Oleg Abramov

planetary sciences graduate student

Dale column is accurate

I would like to reinforce Shane Dale's article relating to population control. Moral implications aside, fears of an exploding world population are without basis in reality. Anyone who's taken a calculus class knows what a population growth graph (be it of people, plants or bacteria) looks like: It's shallow in the beginning, very steep for a short while, and then it becomes very shallow again, never actually reaching the "limit" of the population (in the case of Earth, how many people the planet can "care for"). In the 1970s, when the population scare really took off, we saw steepest rates of growth. In the '90s, we saw that growth is beginning to taper off. The trend will continue in this millennium. Therefore, fears of population explosion are ridiculous.

My advice to people who want to decrease the population: Start with yourself. Your absence on this planet will open up space for a small cluster of cells somewhere, who might have the potential to make decisions based on reality rather than paranoia.

Adam Baker

linguistics junior

Susser letter was not a threat

As usual, those who overreact have completely misconstrued the meaning of my letter in the Thursday edition of the Wildcat. It was neither a call to arms nor a suggestion to anyone that they go out and "smack" somebody. I am neither advocating violence, nor is what I wrote a threat! It was a simple attempt at a joke (sadly mistaken by people who always take themselves too seriously) meant to illustrate a point.

The point was nothing more than an analogy meant to suggest the simple facet of human nature that when somebody hits you, you should want to hit back.

Good God! Don't go out and punch somebody, just think! The "process" was meant as a satirical approach to try and help people who don't think what we're doing in Afghanistan is correct, and to help explain the position of those who do believe in what we're doing in Afghanistan. And as Dereka Rushbrook so correctly pointed out, I did not originate it nor claim to have originated it. I merely paraphrased it and reproduced it to the Wildcat for the purpose of making my point. Satire may not be my strong suit, and I now sadly realize there will always be those who cannot see the forest through the trees.

I would absolutely never impinge on another's freedom of speech, and indeed, I embrace the freedom myself by being able to express my own opinion and thank God that I live in a country where I can do so.

To any who freaked out the moment they read the "process:" Sit back and think a moment before in a rage and fury you condemn others for their views. If it's necessary to respond, then attack the view, not the person! I hope this clears up any confusion regarding my intent and my meaning.

Adam Susser

UA alumnus

Dale should open his mind

Shane Dale's column in Friday's Wildcat has to be his worst yet. A person whose mind is so clouded with ignorance should not be writing about environmentalism, a topic that he obviously does not understand. News Flash Mr. Dale: "Environmentalist morons" do not have an ulterior motive of aborting all pregnancies in order to save the earth for their own selfish use. Dale should be thankful that he was lucky enough to have grown up in a situation where overpopulation was not an issue. He probably had a bed to sleep in and something to eat every day.

I just hope that next time Dale is browsing the Sierra Club Web site, he'll open his mind a little and realize that overpopulation is a very serious issue that all people, whether conservative or liberal, need to be concerned with.

Emily Skinner

political science sophomore.