Media guilty of mind control

After the initial frenzy over the terrorist bombings abated, a lot of questions are being asked about the media's role in whipping up the hysteria. It's a healthy sign that the media's dubious role is being scrutinized. To a discerning observer, the "Fourth Estate" seems like an extension, if not an integral part, of the official propaganda machinery. In the words of Noam Chomsky, the American mind is not just influenced, but controlled by these media houses.

They indoctrinate us into believing that the United States is a place apart, immune to any sort of adversity. It only breeds a false sense of security and invincibility. Unfortunately, many of us consume the misinformation peddled out by these semi-baked mediamen. Such a phenomenon is not only incongruous in an open society like the United States., but also harmful to this vibrant democracy.

Prasad Boddupalli,
computer science graduate student

Spiller column overly emotional

As a life member of the National Rifle Association, I regularly receive America's First Freedom, in which (December 2001) your perspectives editor Cory Spiller was quoted. This is my response to his quote. I find Spiller's remarks to be insulting, overly emotional, without factual or logical backing, and smacking of liberal, bleeding heart, politically correct tripe that is not of the real world.

I lived in Tucson in '84-'85, and I suggest Spiller try going to South Sixth Avenue or the Tucson Truck Terminal at 2:30 a.m. without a weapon to see if he feels safe. Just how does Spiller intend to stop someone who would do him harm? Does he intend to defend himself against ne'er-do-wells with his liberalism? Good luck! I'll take a .380 auto, thank you.

I am not a "blood-thirsty, trigger-happy child" who doesn't know how to express his anger; nor am I a "monster in training," and neither are the vast majority of honest, responsible gun owners. We are simply not the "Natural Born Killers" Spiller and his ilk would have everyone believe. We are merely honest folks prepared to defend ourselves. The police cannot be everywhere - the individual bears the responsibility for his own defense, and the Second Amendment gives us the logical ability to do so.

I suggest Spiller listen to a country and western music radio station and hear the words of Tom T. Hall's "Faster Horses, Younger Women" - "There was something cold and shiny laying by my head, so I started to believe the things he said..."

John Meagher
Waller, Texas

Dissenting voices important for democracy

Ms. Roff contends in her Nov. 19 letter that anyone who does not agree with the way the majority of the nation thinks regarding the Sept. 11 tragedy is disloyal to the country and must leave the country. While there has never been a more clear-cut case for going to war (in order to bring the people responsible for the Sept. 11 outrage to justice), I disagree with the loyalty bit in her response to Eric Cruz's letter.

In a democracy, it is important to have dissenting voices. If everyone in America thought and felt the same way as everyone else, slavery would still be thriving in America. If Abe Lincoln, who was born in Kentucky, had been loyal to his Southern brethren, he wouldn't have fought a war against the South to rid America of slavery. If one has to be loyal to something, how about showing loyalty to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to free speech without being forced to "leave the country."

Having said that, I do believe that America's salvation, as well as the well-being of the rest of the world, depends on the extermination of the Taliban and all other bigots (religious as well as racial) who thrive on the misery of the innocents. And at the same time I do commend people like Eric Cruz and (Congresswoman)Barbara Lee, D-Calif., for their courage to say what is unpopular and for their faith in the rights accorded to them by the U.S. Constitution.

Amar Venkatesh
UA alumnus

Mackovic no good in Texas or anywhere

To the fans of Arizona Wildcat football: I just had to write, all the way from Houston. After all, it is near Thanksgiving and most Texas Longhorn football fans are still thankful that we do not have a team coached by former head coach John Mackovic (1992-97). I wonder when his Tom Landry protˇgˇ connection will wear thin in Arizona as well.

I felt your pain when I saw that Arizona gave up 63 points against Oregon, and again when I saw that Arizona's "Desert Swarm" is ranked 103 out of 115 Division 1-A teams in the only defensive statistic that counts - points allowed per game (ESPN College Football, Nov. 15).

When I watched an unranked UCLA team drop 66 (to 3) on a ranked Texas team playing in Austin during Mackovic's final year in 1997, I knew then what has since been confirmed - John Mackovic could not care less about life on the defensive side of the ball. He is an offensive coordinator in head coach's clothing.

And before you say "yeah, well, he is having to line up someone else's players, just wait 'til he brings in his own," please understand that I believe that by far his worst year of coaching defense at Texas was with his own players in 1997. Current All American UT cornerback Quentin Jammer says of that 1997 swan-song team, "Our defense was a joke" (Houston Chronicle, Nov. 21). Too subjective? Then compare that final Mackovic defensive squad to the current Longhorn team. Run defense, improved from 104th to third in country, pass defense from 75th to sixth, scoring defense from 96th to third.

I can only hope he has learned some humble characteristics since his Texas tour, but from reading the sports page in Houston, it does not appear that anything has changed. But, you know, - he really was a pretty good ESPN analyst.

Tim Travis
Seabrook, Texas

PTS breaking state law

I find it difficult to work up much sympathy for the plight of Parking and Transportation Services regarding alleged infractions of campus parking rules, especially considering PTS has been guilty of violating state law on a daily basis for years.

How so, one may ask? The answer to this question can be found in the Arizona Revised Statutes at A.R.S. 15-1627(C) which states in pertinent part:

"Members of the general public who park their vehicles in an unauthorized manner upon the property of a university shall be warned concerning their unauthorized parking and, if they continue, or if such persons habitually park in such an unauthorized manner, the vehicles so parked may be impounded by the institution and a reasonable fee exacted for the cost of impoundment and storage."

You see, state law only grants ticketing authority to PTS over members of the campus community (see A.R.S. 1627(B)). Consequently, tickets written to your mom, for example, who came to campus to visit and was unfamiliar with campus parking rules, would be unlawful. This, however, has never stopped PTS from ticketing and collecting fines from anyone unfamiliar with the limited extent of PTS's ticketing authority.

With regards to the campus community, PTS - aided and abetted by the payroll department - routinely garnish the wages of employees through payroll deduction for alleged parking violations. This is also a violation of state law at A.R.S. 38-612(A):

"There shall be no payroll deductions from the compensation of state officers or employees except as specifically authorized by federal law or regulation or by a statute of this state. No administrative agency of this state may authorize any other deduction."

Needless to say, no law currently authorizes payroll deductions for campus parking fines, but this has never deterred PTS from carrying out their unlawful collection activities. The next time PTS employees squeal about on-campus parking infractions, perhaps they should put their transmission in reverse and re-evaluate their own conduct.

Terry Bressi
lunar and planetary laboratory staff

Dale column correct, Bolger letter wrong

On Nov. 20, Patrick Bolger commented on Shane Dale's previous article claiming that peace protesters offered no viable alternatives to the war. Strangely, Patrick didn't offer any, only claiming he had already done so in a letter published on Oct. 16. Well, I looked up that letter to see these "alternatives."

First, Patrick's "alternative" is that the United States should use legal means such as the United Nations to bring the terrorists to justice (I didn't know war was illegal, but OK). Funny, the United Nations agrees with the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Mr. Bolger, in case you forgot, President Bush spent over a month trying to get the Tailban to turn over the terrorists by what you call "legal means."

Those means failed. He also claimed that increased surveillance on terrorists and not protesters (since the U.S. government spends so much time worrying about protesters) as well as more non-belligerent means. These were the "alternatives" you listed. Well, all of them have either been attempted, or implemented. But none of them will bring the people responsible for Sept. 11 to justice. These "alternatives" are nothing more than Band-aids over a gunshot wound.

Patrick, you missed the key word in viable alternatives, and that is "viable." The war in Afghanistan has already been a great success, eliminating many high-ranking terrorists as well as leaving the Taliban regime which harbors them in ruins.

Anthony W. Nelson
criminal justice junior