Pro-war side does not have time to hold marches

I am responding to Phil Leckman's and Kendrick Wilson's constant Bush bashing, peace marching, leftwing propaganda in Wednesday's Issue of the Week. Speak for yourself. Those of us who support President Bush do not have time to march on the streets to let the world know about it. We do not have time because most of us are at work or at school. Liberal Facists like yourselves do not represent world opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion, just as President Bush said, but other people are entitled to theirs as well. People who support peace through strength are not going to take to the streets with signs saying that we support war. We are not going to do this not because we don't want war, but because we are not willing to sacrifice our individual liberty for peace like the French do. A side note; the same people that are taking to the streets in Europe are the same people that opposed Winston Churchill's tough stance on Nazi Germany and the same people that opposed Ronald Reagan's tough stance on the Soviet Union. It is the same people with the same argument. When the United States goes into Iraq and finds Saddam's death camps and the arms sold to Iraq illegally by the French and Germans, all of you will have to put your foot in your mouth once again. You call us warmongers, but it is you so called peace marchers who are constantly setting buildings on fire and who are increasingly aggressive against those of us that are not pacifist. You people are anything but peaceful. If you want your voice heard, sit down and respect the opinions of others, and I am sure our leaders will be more willing to listen.

Your violent protests around the world and here on campus go to your discredit, not your credit.

Doak Cheatham
political science senior

UA has yet to define where tuition dollars are spent

Rachel Wilson has again identified the crux of the tuition-hike issue in her Friday letter, "Plan for construction rubs salt in UA's financial wound." While the Likins administration says UA students must pay more of their share (the tuition hike proposal for 2003-4 is virtually a done deal), the administration has yet to explain to what extent, if any, tuition or related revenues are used to subsidize current or previous campus construction projects. How much of our educational resources must be consumed to subsidize campus-parking structures, student housing or pie-in-the-sky notions of "focused excellence?"

Stu Williams
accounting graduate student

Wetzel's column lacks real insight into Hiphop culture

This letter is a response to the racist Bill Wetzel who attempted to discredit an entire culture based upon commercial stereotypes. My first question is why he chose to place "Black history" in the title. It appears as though Mr. Wetzel is saying that Hiphop is black history and that white emcees are a part of black history.

The truth is that his stereotypes are based upon his lack of real knowledge about what Hiphop is. Hiphop is one word for those who didn't know. The one word capitalized "Hiphop" represents the culture of dance, art, music and knowledge that is knitted together to form a strategy known as Hiphop. The two-word version hip-hop is used by corporate interests and wannabes to refer to the appropriation of a culture by money hungry interests seeking to exploit Hiphop and make money off of it in the traditional ways (sex, drugs, violence, etc.).

If you look past the MTV, BET, and radio images you are given, you find brilliant men and women whose lives have been devoted to different art forms. Some example are Talib Kweli, KRS-One, Meire One, Ivan the Action figure, DJ Qbert, DJ Shadow, and scholars like Cornell West who associate freely with Hiphop. What Mr. Wetzel is talking about is capitalism as used by uneducated people. Take your bigoted opinions elsewhere because you make it harder for white boys like myself to gain respect in a multi-cultural arena like Hiphop, or for that matter the world. Mr. Wetzel's understanding of the socio-political arguments behind much of Hiphop is obviously lacking.

The Hiphop culture is not represented by his opinion. He represents a stereotype that he can not see past, and that no self respecting Hiphoppa would enlighten Mr. Wetzel to because who would want to hang around such an opinionated moron who writes for attention and not for the art and the knowledge that it can convey to our communities? If we replace his name with the idea of blacks and token whites then this piece of writing becomes not suitable for publication by any public institution. That is exactly what Mr. Wetzel does without having the guts or insight to realize that is what he is doing. I apologize to all peoples of the Hiphop culture, and can only hope that you will not make the same stereotypes about Caucasians based upon Mr. Wetzel's unenlightened views.

Mike Tolle
creative writing junior

Behavior is motivated by its potential consequences

Our existence on this planet is a fact, and arguing the means of our existence is pointless: It doesn't change who we are right now. So since the means isn't the real issue, the implications must be.

If we evolved from pond scum, we are organisms of the same worth. There is no supreme being, which implies no moral code, which means there is no sin. We can do whatever we want with the assurance that there will be no ultimate consequence. This means that life's only purpose is the gratification of desire while time lasts.

If we are created by a supreme being then there is a moral code, but we still have the freedom to do whatever we want. However, our actions will determine our state of happiness throughout eternity.

As you can see, the evolution/creation debate is really a no consequence/eternal consequence debate. This is the real issue, because it applies directly to our lives today. It determines the code by which we will base our existence while on this Earth.

Sean Tunell
electrical engineering freshman

Roads are more dangerous thanks to SUV popularity

I would like to commend Jessica Suarez for writing such a refreshing column last Thursday. For several years now it seems as though the automobile industry has been taken over by SUVs, and one must ask, why? I have some problems with Jessica Crance's Friday rebuttal. You state that your family buys SUVs for the real reasons everyone buys them, because they have a good towing capacity. While I agree that SUVs function well for towing, I feel as though it's ignorant for you to say that is the real reason everyone buys them. You also point out that the interior size of an SUV is another reason why people buy them. I concur that the interior dimensions in most SUVs are larger than a typical car, but the availability of useful space is not much greater. I have been shocked many times at how small the back seats are in many popular SUVs.

While the market for SUVs is growing larger, the number of people towing boats and off-roading remains relatively the same. One must also look at the type of SUVs that car manufacturers are producing. One would be hard pressed to find a Cadillac Escalade owner off-roading or towing anything, especially on the 22-inch rims that are so popular today (bling bling). Let's analyze the other characteristics of SUVs.

They have horrible acceleration, handling, and braking. They also have a poor ride quality in addition to getting horrible mpg. SUVs have a high ground clearance that probably gives many owners a sense of power, which is good if one needs a certain type of automobile to make themselves feel powerful.

Accidents that involve two SUVs are far more dangerous than those that involve two cars. The reason for this is that SUVs are not made to crumple in crashes. Cars today are built with great crumple zones that allow many drivers to escape with only minor injuries instead of death due to their high rate of impact absorption. In addition, cars are much better at avoiding accidents because they perform better in all the categories I mentioned above. Driving is becoming more and more dangerous because of SUVs.

Next time you want to criticize someone's opinions, please try to inform yourself more on the topic. Until then, I'll be happy driving my safe little Honda Civic that gets over 35 mpg, by the way.

John Lepore
history senior

Defining our existence used to fulfill happiness

Our existence on this planet is a fact, and arguing the means of our existence is pointless, it doesn't change who we are right now. So since the means isn't the real issue, the implications must be.

If we evolved from pond scum, we are organisms of the same worth. There is no supreme being, which implies no moral code, which means there is no sin. We can do whatever we want with the assurance that there will be no ultimate consequence. This means that life's only purpose is the gratification of desire while time lasts.

If we are created by a supreme being then there is a moral code, but we still have the freedom to do whatever we want. However, our actions will determine our state of happiness throughout eternity.

As you can see, the evolution/creation debate is really a no consequence/eternal consequence debate. This is the real issue, because it applies directly to our lives today. It determines the code by which we will base our existence while on this Earth.

Sean Tunell
electrical engineering freshman