U.S. to blame for prevalent global anti-U.S. sentiment

Steve Campbell writes "It is now time to show Mr. Annan and the rest of the anti-American world that the United States no longer needs them, as if they ever did."

The U.S. military receives more funding than all the other militaries in the world combined. This is money that could be spent on education, health care, substance abuse treatment/prevention, clean public transportation, libraries, emergency services, etc.

But in an "anti-American world" the U.S. must defend itself. If this nation continues to reject the rest of the world as irrelevant, then the "anti-American" sentiment will only intensify. And there's no one to blame but ourselves. We helped draft the Kyoto Protocol to reduce air pollution and then refused to sign it because U.S. industries didn't want the expense.

We signed an anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia and then decided to take back our signature when it was no longer convenient. We refuse to recognize the international court unless U.S. citizens are granted blanket immunity from prosecution for war crimes. We press the U.N. for strict enforcement of resolutions against some nations yet use our veto power to prevent resolutions against others from being enforced. We supported Iraq in its war with Iran, despite knowledge that Iraq was using chemical weapons illegally. We continued to support Iraq financially while it was committing genocide. We seek to impose our democratic system on the rest of the world, although much of our government is not democratic at all ÷ such as the appointment of judges, representation in the Senate, and bribery in the form of large campaign contributions. Our law enforcement-overtreatment approach to the issue of recreational drug abuse has flooded Latin America and parts of Asia with hundreds of billions of dollars, causing widespread instability and corruption. As a nation, we consume over 25 percent of the world's natural resources, yet represent only 5 percent of the world's population.

While this country may have achieved some great things, you will be hard pressed to find a nation lacking a reason to dislike us. If this situation is not remedied soon, blossoming military expenditures will continue to eat away at the foundation of our society. The U.S. should seek to be friends with the rest of the world and engage in cooperative world government through the U.N., rather than declaring the world irrelevant and stupid as Steve Campbell and George Bush have done.

Kris Brown
electrical engineering senior

ÎNarrow-minded viewpoint' won't stand in United States

I always check in with the Wildcat in order to keep abreast of how the school is doing from a students' perspective. I found it quite disheartening when I read Kamalia Kay's Monday letter about the her perception of the United States citizens. Her insistence on lumping all citizens of the United States as people who only know about their own country is ludicrous and shows the ignorance that she is critical of. I suggest that Ms. Kay concentrate more on embracing the United States' culture so that when she embarks on her path outside of the university, she will be able to present herself as a more rounded person who is capable of handling today's global workforce and not the narrow-minded viewpoint that she preaches but doesn't practice.

Berton P. Reynolds
UA alumnus 1986

Criticism of U.S. citizens shows bad argumentation

I am writing in response to the article titled "American citizens need to be more aware of other nations." Although the premise of this article appears to be sound, the justifications given by Kamalia Kay for her claim are not sufficient. In her letter, Ms. Kay states that Americans have no concept of the outside world. She bases this conclusion on a discussion she had with "some new American friends." It is fallacious for Ms. Kay to assume that because a few of her "American friends" are not familiar with her country, it is therefore fair and accurate to determine that all Americans are ignorant and that "we believe we are so superior that we don't need to know about other people's cultures."

Likewise, Ms. Kay goes on to criticize the system of education in the United States. This aspect of the letter is particularly interesting in that Ms. Kay made the decision to leave her home to attend an American university. I would assume that someone who is genuinely disturbed by the American educational system would not want to be a part of it. Ms. Kay uses sweeping generalizations to legitimize her claims which is noteworthy in that she is criticizing American citizens for their ignorance. As far as I am concerned, sweeping generalizations are neither well-founded nor justifiable methods of argumentation.

Jennifer Jordan
communication and Spanish senior

Black building will add to summer time discomfort

Physicists and others of common sense ask: Why black for the new Gittings building? Surely the University of Arizona has people (from the president up) to advise against having large black buildings on a desert campus ÷ in a desert that gets very hot much of the year.

Any black building absorbs large amounts of the sun's heat by day, and most of the Tucson year this large new black building will add enormously to a detrimental "heat-island" effect on campus and in the region. Annual cooling-costs are enormous for a black building compared with those for a light-colored building in our desert. This particular building will also create highly uncomfortable conditions anywhere near on campus, for most of the warm-to-hot year.

As a taxpayer and physicist, I suggest the University/architects et al repaint this now-black building to white or a pale shade. The costs of cooling (and the winter costs of heating) will be less ÷ ask any physicist why. The University has a responsibility to demonstrate wisdom as well as economy on its campus. The laws of physics, and environmental requirements, suggest that the black building should be repainted the lightest of hues ÷ this will also announce that UA's thoughtful people are saving energy and polluting less!

Helen H. Bayly
physicist, Tucson AZ

Sweatshops part of system in which Îeveryone wins'

Over our careers at the university we have all heard Students Against Sweatshops numerous platforms. While SAS has been relatively quiet this year, this compassionate group of liberals is omnipresent. This somewhat motivated group attempts to sell us on the fact that sweatshops are pure evil and must be abolished, I have to disagree with them and this is why I hope to form SASAS or Students Against Students Against Sweatshops.

Sweatshops are great, everyone wins. Nike gets to maximize profits, workers in the sweatshops get paid an honest wage, and most importantly we the consumer get the reasonably priced, high quality footwear we demand.

I know what some of you are going to say, sweatshop workers don't earn an honest wage. Their wages are relative to where they live. Yes, a dollar a day in here isn't anything but a dollar a day in Taiwan and you re living like a king. Let's face it, if these workers weren't satisfied with the pay they receive would they go into work day after day? Of course not, due to unstable governments and an overall lack of education these workers don t have any other options. If they aren't happy with what they earn I'm sure someone else will gladly take their job and the dollar a day that comes with it. Why shouldn't we capitalize off the weak? After all, this country is about looking out for number one.

Without sweatshops the prices of footwear and athletic apparel would go through the roof, this is far more terrifying than a handful of workers earning next to nothing working in less than safe conditions. We must see through SAS's leftist rhetoric and see sweatshops for the Godsend they are. Join me in the formation of Students Against Students Against Sweatshops and we will call on companies like Nike to continue to manufacture quality products at affordable prices.

Brian Danker
materials science and engineering senior