Open debate about political issues part of ÎAmerican way'

I wish to congratulate Charles A. Peterson on having yet another ill-informed, irrational rant published. They always bring a smile to my face with their ridiculous assertions and incorrect claims.

It seems that this time Mr. Peterson has decided to criticize the "teach-in" last Tuesday that he apparently did not attend. If he had attended, he would know that the panelists presented facts and opinions while clearly distinguishing between the two and establishing the fact that there were considerations which they were not addressing. Furthermore, those in favor of going to war were encouraged to voice their opinions and participate.

Mr. Peterson, when you complain of classes filled with "self-righteous, egotistical, quasi-socialistic professors spewing their hatred for President Bush and the American way," you exemplify everything that is wrong with this university. My advice to you and to anyone else that is dissatisfied with the teaching at this school is to transfer. As for your reference to "one-sided brainwashing sessions," let me just say that anyone who is afraid of brainwashing is too impressionable to survive in this world. Similarly, your fear of communism as a threat seems to indicate a certain delusional existence.

Since you have failed to take notice, let me be the first to tell you that the threat of scary commies taking over the world is dead. (By the way, any student of history should know this.)

I have yet to encounter any hatred for President Bush or the "American way" in any of my classes. I have, however, encountered criticisms of his policies and his leadership. For me, the ongoing debate about issues such as these is truly part of the "American way." I therefore challenge you, Mr. Peterson, to engage in real political debate instead of crying about the imaginary liberal conspiracy to wash your brain. I assure you, your brain is safe as long as it has already been filled with right-wing rhetoric and other crybaby philosophies.

Joseph J. De La Rosa
history senior

Article about Iraq war debate reported speculation, not facts

On Feb. 26, the Wildcat ran an article titled "Teach-in professors express opposition to war with Iraq" by Aaron Mackey. In the article, the following quote was attributed to me: "Can we trust the government?" Unfortunately, the writer of the story, attempting to paraphrase my question, completely altered the meaning of it. Properly paraphrased, my question was (speaking to the panel members) "Why should we, the American people, have more confidence in your conclusions regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorist organizations than we have in the conclusions of government officials?" The first question as quoted in the Wildcat implies that I held the professors who made up the panel to be more credible than the government. In fact, the opposite is true.

The professors who spoke at this forum laid out a litany of serious charges against the Bush administration. A very short list can be made from Aaron Mackey's article: (1) Political science professor David Gibbs believes that the U.S. has a "deep need to look for enemies and reaffirm the U.S.'s role in war." (2) Gibbs also focused on oil as a key motivation for a war with Iraq. (3) History professor Richard Eaton believes that the Bush administration has "skillfully exploited the fears of 9/11" by pushing toward a war with Iraq.

Unfortunately, none of these charges was backed up with facts. Like most of the claims made by the panelists, they were only speculation and conjecture based upon narrow and biased sources. Indeed, most of the sources cited were actually speculative reports from other like-minded academics.

With my question, I intended to challenge the members of the panel to produce verifiable facts to support the many serious allegations they made against the Bush administration.

Benjamin Peddicord
electrical engineering senior

Teeter-totter was functional art, too bad it's now broken

About a month ago, I was greeted by a new structure as I walked through the main gate of the university on my way to my morning class ÷ a teeter-totter. My immediate reaction was to hop on board and teeter away. However, that was not in the cards that glorious Arizona morning as I found, much to my displeasure, that the teeter-totter was chained down to the earth with formidable links of chain. I thought to myself: "I should write a letter to the Wildcat informing my fellow Wildcats of this great piece of playground equipment; hopefully my letter would stir enough commotion within the student body that someone would un-lock the totter."

Unfortunately, my letter comes too late and the totter has been broken. Some of my fellow students point to what a waste the "useless piece of art" it was, however, if one would start to examine the piece of art he or she would soon realize that it was built to be used. It was functional art that was forced to be static, and how unfortunate and untimely a demise it met.

To the person with the keys, shame on you! Did you honestly think a piece of playground equipment in the middle of a campus with 30,000+ students would not be used? I must disagree with Mr. Louis A. Norwaczyk II's Feb. 27 letter: I was not happy to see the teeter-totter mangled and bent out of proportion as I walked on campus this morning; I was saddened because I did not get the opportunity to ride such a brilliant piece of equipment.

I hope that Mr. Norwaczyk II, and those of you that share his sentiments, stop for a moment and take look at some of the pieces of artwork on campus. There is a lot more to public art than the first glance, for instance the art behind the student union that is "gaudy and clashes with everything around it"; rather, it has some very strong symbolism referencing the campus and the student union. So take the time and take a meaningful examination of the piece; you might be surprised what you'll discover!

Kurt Astroth
political science senior