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 apposed 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 a 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

Society does not owe one an education

Octavio Barcelo's statement in his Thursday letter, echoing the Arizona Constitution, that a college education should be "as nearly free as possible" demonstrates at best, naivete, and at worst, an egotistical entitlement mentality.

Regardless of what the bursar's office charges Mr. Barcel every semester, the cost of his education remains the same - unless, of course, all of his professors decide to volunteer their teaching services.

Therefore, what Mr. Barcelo really means when he says that a college education should be "as nearly free as possible" is that a college education should be "paid as much as possible by people other than those who will receive it."

I find this belief that society owes one an education (or anything else for that matter) disturbing, and it is far too prevalent in today's society.

Kevin A. Pollak
second-year student, James E. Rogers College of Law

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 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, are 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

Should gender be newsworthy?

It is an interesting error that, though yesterday's "Woman kills man with a suicide bomb" AP article makes a specific point even in the headline that the suicide bomber was female, the photo caption nevertheless refers to "his explosives" and "himself." It is definitely scary to fathom the extension of suicide bombers to the other half of the Palestinian population. However, it is at minimum an innocent mistake, at maximum a pertinent cultural reflection that the same article specifically emphasizes and offhandedly "neutralizes" the bomber's gender.

The error begs the question: Is her gender so important that it needs to be in the headline, does gender really matter in the face of such horror, or is such horror automatically "male?"

Rachel Wellhausen
senior majoring in economics and English

UA basketball teams forewarned

While watching the Arizona-UConn basketball game on CBS, Saturday, I saw where some befuddled Arizona fan was holding up a sign that read "Next Time Send The Women." Since UConn was a few points behind at the time, I assume he was directing this pathetic request toward the UConn men's team. However, I think he, and other misguided Arizona hoop fans, should be forewarned! The top-ranked UConn women's basketball team would likely beat the current Arizona team by something like 15-20 points ... and it would beat the Arizona women's team by something like 50.

Dave Mazzaferro
Uconn fan

Krutch's ideas represented by keeping cactus garden

I just learned of the University of Arizona's plan to move the Krutch cactus garden to the west side of Old Main, and I am disheartened. What kind of university dedicates a garden to memorialize a man who warned repeatedly about civilization's encroachment on the natural world, then decides to move that garden because it does not fit into future building plans?

In "Grand Canyon," Krutch wrote: "We do not tear down a high school because the building industry can prove that it could profitably erect an apartment house on the site and that tenants would be glad to occupy it. We say, instead, that education pays off in a different way and that the space occupied by schools is not wasted. Much the same thing we say also of the space taken up by the green of a city square. But if parks and other public lands are to be held only until someone can show that a 'use' has been found for them, they will not last very much longer."

Apparently, university administrators have found another "use" for the Krutch garden space, and they justify their decision by saying that the garden does not fit into the Alumni Plaza plans, and that the garden obstructs the view of Old Main. But what they are really saying is that the university's word is good only until the university says otherwise.

Is that the kind of lesson a major institute of higher learning should be teaching today?

Robert Rowley
Las Cruces, N.M.

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 4 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