ASUA lets students down again

The cancelation of the Better Than Ezra show, or "CatKraze 2002," put on by ASUA was a complete insult to all those students who purchased tickets to the event and were looking forward to seeing a fantastic concert put on by a band whose popularity may not surpass the teeny-bopper boy-bands that dominate MTV's "TRL," but whose musical talent and emotional lyrics make them an elite group and should have been welcomed with enthusiasm and open arms into the intimate confines of Centennial Hall. Imagine my surprise then Saturday evening when I received a call from Centennial Hall saying the concert had been cancelled due to lack of ticket sales.

With the awful luck that has plagued CatFest this year and in years past, one would think that ASUA would make every attempt to make this show a success and at least run. Apparently not. By canceling this show, ASUA has shown us that the student is not the most important person on campus, rather the dollar is the driving force behind campus. The student: nothing but a cold enrollment statistic. ASUA states that the students are their "thing," their purpose for being and that they are dependent on us. So, apparently, they are only dependent on our money and not our vote, as they seem to get by with such a low percentage of voter turnout and support for their various programs.

But perhaps I am expecting too much. I e-mailed the band through their Web site requesting a song for Sunday's show and got a personal response back from them. Why should I expect that kind of caring from ASUA? It is only my vote and money that got them where they are.

William Paul Miller
hydrological engineering junior

Thumbs up for Wildcat news

Major kudos to the Arizona Daily Wildcat and reporters Daniel Scarpinato, Cyndy Cole and Rachel Williamson on doing such a great job covering the current UA budget crisis. Their in-depth articles, based on research and the almost-forgotten journalistic art of actually talking to people, are informative and thoroughly refreshing. Since the quality of higher education in Arizona and several jobs hang delicately in the balance, it's reassuring to know that at least one news organization in southern Arizona is out there digging a little deeper on a story of monumental importance, not only to the UA campus community but to the rest of Tucson as well. Well done!

Rebecca Cook
associate editor, UA Extended University

Hard to blame many teachers

This letter is in response to Charles Peterson's Thursday letter. Oh, Charles. I hate to tell you this, but from what I've seen, the only person writing in claiming to know everything in the past six months isn't the liberals on campus ... it's you.

I'm not sure I understand (my silly little liberal mind), but the idea of giving money to schools who need it rather than schools who are apparently doing fine seems a little more rational. Furthermore, in the Arizona Education system, there are district-based "Career Ladder" programs. Also, thanks to Proposition 301, there are "Pay For Performance" programs. I'm sorry if after 26 years your mom is still on the bottom rung of the ladder, but maybe she should spend less time "reaching" children and more time teaching them.

In lower-income districts, many of the students don't have the at-home support for studying and doing their homework. No, Charles, they're not out doing drugs and shooting each other ... they're working two jobs trying to make a livable income to support their family. In the K-12 Education, kids are only in school nine percent of their lives...the other 91 percent is up to the parents. Dr. Ruby Payne has shown in her book, "A Framework for Understanding Poverty," that the culture of poverty has very limited verbal-linguistic skills, regardless of race, thus giving limited educational support in the home. That's a little hard to blame on the teachers.

Maybe you could write in again and tell us "the way things ought to be." If not, just keep stereotyping everyone and talking about things you obviously know nothing about. You sure are representing the history department well and reminding me why I don't vote Republican.

John Ryan
graduate student

Arts title in poor taste

As a member of the staff at this university, and a member of the female population on this campus, I think you should know that the words used in the headline of the Arts' Thursday article, "Tits, wits and throwing fits," were in very poor taste.

I assume the Wildcat staff is comprised of individuals who are seeking an experience that would help them in future editorial/newspaper professions, and this is not a way to "win friends and influence people." While the article would be appropriate for the pages of the Tucson Weekly (having worked there I am not opposed to the Weekly) - the tone of the article does not belong here at the UA. I would recommend having your writer review the AP Style book to gain a better grasp of what is appropriate for a newspaper, and then apply that knowledge in more productive ways.

I understand the word was taken from a quote, (which could've also been deleted or altered) but it's not necessary to use it again. This seemed to be the opinion of the other staffers I discussed the article with as well.

Shanley Yates
administrative secretary, chemistry department

Durrani column needs more facts

Mariam Durrani claims that it is wrong for Mr. Rumsfeld to call the Cuban detainees "unlawful combatants" in her Friday column, "U.S. Must Follow International Laws." However, if she had done her research, she would have found that the detainees do not meet three out of the four requirements for lawful combatants according to the governing Hague Convention as well as being considered so by U.S. domestic law. And since, according to international law, the United States is at war, the detainees are subject to military court proceedings. As far as the question over POW status, Ms. Durrani should read article four of the Geneva Convention, where she will find that the detainees do not fit into any of the categories defining Prisoners of War.

Karen Ellcessor
political science junior

Companies not certified "sweat-free"

I write regarding the Wednesday article, "Activist pushes for workers rights." I felt it necessary to respond to some of the statements made by Students Against Sweatshops spokesperson Rachel Wilson. The Fair Labor Association is a non-profit organization established to protect the rights of workers around the world. It is the product of years of hard work by university and college, company, and non-governmental representatives to form a comprehensive code of conduct and monitoring system. The FLA works with all actors in the production of goods to ensure that certain standards are kept. As President Peter Likins said, "Cooperation is the key..." and the FLA embodies the idea that cooperation is a highly effective way to solve many of the abuses in factories across the globe. The FLA recognizes the importance of working directly with companies and with other groups, such as the Workers Rights Consortium, in order to succeed in our efforts. The FLA in no way certifies companies as "sweat-free" as Ms. Wilson alluded to. We will be analyzing and reporting publicly on the compliance records of our Participating Companies every year. At some point in the future we will consider what form of recognition should be given to companies which achieve a solid compliance track record.

Furthermore, in response to Ms. Wilson's challenge of the FLA's credibility, I must note that 173 colleges and universities, and over 600 companies have signed on to our code of conduct. The FLA is and will continue to be a leader in monitoring and ensuring compliance among our participating companies and licensees.

Auret van Heerden
executive director, Fair Labor Association

We need Qwest less regulated

Daniel Cucher's Thursday article regarding scandals surrounding Qwest over the past few years depict the types of attitudes that have plagued American business and consumers for decades. I agree that phone companies can be a pain, however, more government regulation is not the answer to our problems. If Qwest has wrongfully billed customers, then they certainly should be prosecuted. Last time I checked, that was theft. Fancy new organizations do not need to be set up in order to criminalize thieves. Implying that we need more regulations on Qwest is nothing more than implying that people are too stupid to not be fooled by the phone company, so millions of tax dollars need to be spent in order to save them from their own ignorance. This is like saying we need more government institutions to catch thieves because people aren't bright enough to notice something was taken from their house.

He then goes on to praise anti-trust organizations in Arizona, complaining that Qwest gets away with such bad service because they have such an immense monopoly in the telecommunications market. These anti-trust organizations, such as the Arizona Corporation Commission, do everything they can do regulate Qwest - which includes setting price caps on phone bills in order to "protect" the customer from high prices. These price caps, along with many other regulations, is exactly why there is no competition in the telecommunications market. These price caps and regulations make the market less attractive to profit seeking entrepreneurs, thereby discouraging competition. Setting price caps may protect customers in the short run, however if they were done away with, competition would flourish and ultimately prices would end up lower than even their price capped level.

Ironically, the ACC, which is intended to regulate monopolies, is exactly what allows Qwest to maintain its monopoly. Increased competition due to a free, unregulated market might make it harder for a company like Qwest to get away with poor billing practices as well, for fear of losing their customers. The answer is less government intervention, not more.

Your tax dollars are being spent on this ridiculous logic.

Kevin Durkin
business junior

Article prevented "annoying calls"

I just wanted to say thank you for running the article about Qwest and their

unscrupulous business practices. In my phone bill each month, there are numerous advertisements, and I too must have thrown out their notice saying they would be sharing my information with the Qwest family of companies. Thanks to the "We're not gonna take it - even though we sort of have to" article by Daniel Cucher, I was able to get online and request that they not share my information, thus saving me from the angst of countless annoying calls. Again, my appreciation.

William Grisby McCormick
genetics and planetary science junior

Vote for music with dollars

In response to Psycho Dave's latest rant about Sugar Ray, I would just like to ask what gives him the right to decide an entire university's listening preferences? If you don't like the band, then don't buy their music and don't see their concert. That's how American society decides if something is worthwhile - we vote with our dollars. You may not like the new wave of MTV pop-crap, but judging by their record sales, a lot of other people do. As for your decree that underground magazines and little clubs are the true path to musical enlightenment, I will say this: Sometimes a really great band can be discovered there, but more often than not, they are underground for a reason.

Andrew Sexton
BPA senior