Gibbs' speech on Iraq was contradictory and ridiculous

Associate professor David Gibbs' Sept. 23 speech on U.S. policy toward Iraq is yet another example of the leftist faculty dominating the UA. Gibbs' attempt to push the "America is evil" philosophy that typifies liberals like himself was devoid of any substantiated facts.

The man contradicts himself. He stated that he is confident "that the United States could detect weapons of mass destruction." Yes, the United States is able to detect some of what goes on in Iraq. Guess what? The U.S. government has concluded that a threat of weapons of mass destruction exists. To suppose that those weapons have all been done away with is fantasy, not fact. Maybe Professor Gibbs has a crystal ball in his office that states otherwise. Or is it a Ouija board? According to the Gibbs crystal ball, the real reasons for going into Iraq are "oil and an excuse to raise the military budget and reestablish the United States' position as the leader of the world." Really? Isn't the United States already the leader of the world? And can't it just buy the oil it needs? I haven't noticed a shortage of suppliers wanting to sell oil.

The problem is not in the fact that people like Gibbs say what they say. It's a given that there will be no end to the criticism from the left of the United States. Remember Gibbs' statement from the Wildcat on Sept. 20, 2001 ("Panel discusses political implications of attacks"): "Gibbs said the current terrorist problems result from the United States' policy failures." It's all our fault! We deserved Sept. 11! We brought it on ourselves!

The problem is the UA has no balance in its faculty. Every university has its nuts, but where are the sane ones here? Given that Professor Gibbs teaches a course on the Arab-Israeli conflict, I can only speculate on what nonsense is coming out of that waste of forty-five minutes. Let me guess ÷ Israel is oppressing the Palestinians, with the help of the evil United States, of course.

Fortunately, most UA students are intelligent enough to see through the B.S. on their way to their B.A. Besides, off-the-wall professors can be amusing and good for a laugh. But considering the cost of tuition, isn't it a waste of resources if all that's taught is the same old "America is to blame" nonsense?

Dale Hand
Cornell University alumnus

The Îfist hit' is a backward tradition that needs to end

Daniel Cucher's column ("Join a revolution: Abolish the fist hit") in the Opinion and Editorial section of Tuesday's Wildcat was fantastic! His acute analysis of the horrible social phenomenon of the fist hit was well written and couldn't be more on the money! I have read many great articles in the Wildcat over the past three years, but this is the first time I have been compelled to write in.

The fist hit seems to have stemmed from the Californians who prefer the "slap and hit" method of greeting. This technique involves a quick slap of the palms followed immediately by the aforementioned "fist hit." Alternatively, there are those non-Californians who have simply tacked on the "fist hit" to their existing method of greeting ÷ an embraced palm slap in which both parties momentarily embrace the slap, then move into the so called hip palm slap.

I doubt Daniel has received as much mail as he should for this great article. My roommate and I (both anti-hitters) remain in constant battle with our friends to try to avoid this clear step backwards in evolution. Thanks for being up on not only the school and administration goings on that most people care about, but also keeping it real with great editorials like Cucher's call to join the anti-fist hit revolution!

David Baker
MIS junior

Lose the fist hit, but try to keep your own social identity

This is in response to Daniel Cucher's Tuesday column "Join a revolution: Abolish the Fist Hit." Every freshman arriving to Tucson wants acceptance, so when I was first confronted with the "fist hit," I reluctantly joined. Many others also conformed to this awkward, yet unique, greeting. As time progressed, however, I realized that this greeting was conflicting with my San Francisco roots. Halfway through fall 2000, I too abolished the fist-hit.

Cucher says that the fist hit started in medieval times; however, my theory differs. Being "So-Cal" is the new epidemic of young'ns around this country ÷ and parts of Canada and Poland. In many southern California areas, such as San Fernando Valley and San Diego, the fist hit began within the last decade for young suburbanites to somewhat urbanize themselves. Their demographics sparked somewhat of a sheltered image, so as a result, the fist hit was invented. This advance prepared these chaps for life in the big city. Hollywood and Los Angeles have always competed against the Valley just as the City of San Diego competes with Poway and La Jolla.

The fist hit, as Cucher says, enforces the masculine appearance that man holds sacred at all times. When these adolescent suburbanites reach university level, a manlier vibe is emitted when greeting a new person in this manner. This not only waves a flag of masculinity, but it also represents their southern Cal status with the rapid contraction of their fists. Of course, Scottsdale-heads and New Jersey-heads have little identity, so they quickly grasp this concept. From here, the concept spreads quicker than a sorority girl's legs with half a beer in her system.

I have attempted to turn these Southern California kids back to their sixth grade roots with the "slap-grab," a greeting in one continuous motion. Some have adopted it; some just stare at me blankly, adjust their Volcom hat, then drone, "dude." However, it is important to continue one's ancestry because history has a tendency to repeat itself. I condone the usage of their greeting because, indeed, it is part of their cultural background. For all others, stay true to this here game player, and "to thine own self be true."

David Shamash
undeclared sophomore