Pedestrians must take more responsibility for their safety

In the Oct. 1 issue of the Wildcat, Erica Yoder and Brody Burns wrote letters about banning bicycles from the campus ("Bikes should be outlawed to keep campus safe" and "Pedestrians should always have the right of way over bikers"). Both of these articles lacked a reasonable solution and didn't give any perspective on what a valuable tool a bike can be on our campus.

According to both Yoder and Burns, our campus is not that big and can easily be traversed on foot. These statements are true, but the thing they don't seem to realize is that it takes a significant amount of time to get from one end to the other. A person living on campus would have to walk for almost 12-15 minutes to get to the Ina E. Gittings building for a class, with the return trip that is almost half an hour of just getting to the place.

The point was also made by both Yoder and Burns that a pedestrian has the right of way according to all civil laws currently in effect, which is a valid point that supports their argument quite well. What was not mentioned is that certain individuals are not as responsible as others and don't tend to abide by these rules. This does not mean that everybody that has learned to use available tools to their advantage should be punished because the negligence of a few creates potential danger.

Finally, neither Yoder nor Burns mentioned the pedestrian's responsibility for keeping themselves safe. Those of us who were brought up by responsible parents learned not to play in the middle of the street, to look both ways before crossing a street and to yield to an object that has the potential to hurt you. I usually walk to class because of the danger pedestrians create for themselves and for bikers. Careless meandering, talking on cell phones, and a general lack of attention to their surroundings is an invitation to be run over by someone who has to keep track of many people carelessly walking through their direction of travel.

These acts don't just happen with bikers either. I have seen pedestrians walk across all the major streets around campus forcing the traffic to stop and let them pass where they shouldn't have to. What are we supposed to do, request that cars not to be allowed to drive on the street because Tucson is not that big and they create dangerous situations for pedestrians?

James Lusk
undeclared sophomore

Peace activists not cowards; remember what the fight for

In response to Cadet Feld's letter (ÎPatriot' ready for war, despite pleas of peace-activist Îcowards,' Oct. 1), I can't help but wonder what you were thinking when you wrote it. To call peace activists cowards for practicing their freedom of assembly to put forth their beliefs is ridiculous, especially because it happens to be a belief that is not your own or that of President Bush. So not everyone believes in war, regardless of the reasons behind it (religious, economic, political, etc.). That is each and every person's right to decide for themselves.

No one is asking you to listen to activists, but just to respect the fact that they have opinions and to keep in mind that the military way of life (dying for your country) isn't for everyone. It doesn't make you cowardly if it isn't the lifestyle for you, nor does it make you a patriot for giving your life to your country when you're doing it for the wrong reasons (to belittle others who aren't like you or don't want what you want).

I am forced to believe that somewhere deep inside you understand that activism is something worth fighting for, not concealing or placing in a "glass jar" to be done away with. Every day that I am involved in ROTC, I think of the same group of people that you called a "thorn in our side" and a "nuisance" as my motivation to keep going, even though it would be easier for me to just quit. I decided to join the military to protect our nation from those threatening to change our way of life, which includes our right to protest. Maybe it's time for you to ask yourself, "What am I fighting to protect if not for activists to be heard?" I personally don't want to fight for a country or even live in one that has your philosophy of "agree or shut up" rather than "let's agree to disagree."

So peace activists, if you value human life more than human death, believe that Bush is an idiot, want to protect the environment, etc., feel free to protest in my direction. I respect you for it and think of you as anything but cowards; you're my motivation whether you want to be or not and I am grateful that you're giving me something I believe is worth dying for.

Alea Perez
AFROTC Cadet
geography sophomore

Winsky raises good issues for governor's campaign

I had to chuckle at Jason Winsky's attempt at Swiftian satire in his Oct. 1 letter "Invasion of the Pot-Smoking Clone Children," but I thought he raised a valid point when he remarked on the current socio-economic situation of our state. While I think clone farmers are not the solution, neither will I propose eating impoverished children to boost the economy.

This year, we are afforded the opportunity to change leadership in our state, a change that could help us drag ourselves out of the quagmire of Jane Hull's administration. But I don't believe that Matt Salmon or Janet Napolitano are viable options for the office of governor at this juncture. We need an independent thinker, especially in politics. Someone who isn't stuck on the agenda of his or her party, but is instead focused on addressing the problems we face today.

I'm sure many of you have seen Richard Mahoney's commercial at the UA main gate on promising increased funding to our campus, but perhaps you haven't heard his stance on economic issues and the plethora of ideas he has for the future of Arizona. The man has the education, the experience and the desire to bring us out of the shadow of our current low. Perhaps you should consider a candidate who will do something instead of one who works only toward the goal of re-election next term. Mahoney for Governor! (And no, I wasn't paid to write this letter.)

Jacob Lauser
electrical engineering sophomore

More important racial issues than ÎEmpty Spaces' comic

In response to Anna Mpjina's Wednesday letter, "ÎEmpty Spaces' comic guilty of promoting racial stereotypes," in which she accuses the comic strip of racial stereotyping, I would like to point out one major thing: Has she ever contemplated why the Michelin man is made of white tires? Let's think about this. Since the symbol has been around for a few decades, it is obvious that the advertising people at Michelin decided that they wanted their "mascot" to be a man made of tires. But if they made him composed of black tires, then he would have seemed African-American. And that would have been a taboo in a white-majority society.

I commend "Empty Spaces" for pointing out this horrible racial mascot, and in response, poking fun at a rather harmless racial stereotype. In my experience, black people just have more talent dancing than white people. I don't think blacks or whites get offended by that notion; this simple stereotype harms no one. No feelings will be hurt if a black person cannot dance or if a white person can.

Ms. Mpinja goes on to say that, "in this day and age, we are far beyond using racial stereotypes ... as a form of humor." I don't know if Ms. Mpinja has been paying attention to modern society, but many jokes in popular sitcoms have been based on race. "Seinfeld" and "South Park" are two that come to mind very quickly, and I know there are more. And if Ms. Mpinja thinks we are beyond stereotypes, have her watch a few network sitcoms to see how many times homosexual stereotypes are used for humor.

People need to see that harmless stereotypes like the black/white dancing ability dichotomy is not something that should concern people. In many parts of this country and many other countries, real racism keeps on going, but these "activists" ignore it until something catches their attention in the popular media. This overly developed sense of anti-racism can be personified in the censoring of a teacher who used the word "niggardly" in its lexical sense. The word has no roots in the racial slur, but for some reason this teacher was forced to apologize for using proper English.

In closing, people need to save their fights for issues that matter.

Dancing ability is not one of them.

Louis A. Nowaczyk II
general biology junior

Wildcat, state senate candidate should both be ashamed of ad

I am utterly offended by both Kimberly Swanson and the Wildcat for running her ad in yesterday's edition. No person running for state senate should be advertising in a skimpy little bikini. That is the most unprofessional thing anyone can do! Also, her body looks like it belongs on the WWE, not a senate advertisement. I would have thought that the Wildcat would have enough sense as to not show such gross images of a woman. And to top it all off, she is holding a cross over her head that is as big as she is!

What is that saying? To me it says "Tucson, look at the mountains and see a cross, see Christianity and see it in a bikini!" There is something completely wrong with that! Has she ever heard of something known as "separation of church and state?" I know there is such thing as free speech and no censorship, but this is ridiculous!

I have lost respect for the Wildcat due to this ad, and I think that next time someone wants to run for senate, they should keep their cross at home and stick to what is really important!

Mike Rosenthal
Judaic studies sophomore

Bravely voicing one's opinions, not aggression, will create peace

Annie Field's comments in her Tuesday letter, "ÎPatriot' ready for war, despite pleas of peace-activist Îcowards,'" are too much.

Why strike at a fellow U.S. citizen who is only using her right to free speech? Calling anyone a coward just because they are voicing their opinion is wrong, no matter what the opinion is.

Trying to keep demonstrators "in a glass jar" is what American society has been fighting against since the birth of the nation. Peace activists are like every other American in that they voice their opinion. Should I accuse you of trying to subjugate

the masses with your pro-war ideals?

No. And I won't.

However, I do believe that your views of war and peace are flawed. If going to war is usually the only way to obtain peace, then our world is doomed.

How can we call ourselves civilized if we constantly kill each other? We must always strive for peace, and war should be waged only as a last resort.

I'm not saying let them build their weapons without confrontation, but we cannot jump too quickly into conflict. The United States should try to keep its ties with the United Nations.

I agree that the United Nations should be pressured to inspect every part of Iraq and disarm every weapon found, but the United States cannot jump directly to war if the United Nations fails to make progress quickly enough.

As final note, I support peace and am apt not to support war. Am I a coward? No. Peace activists are NOT cowards. Many of them are braver than you and I.

They have enough courage to stand up to giants and present their ideas, even when they expect sneers and opposition like yours.

Instead of having a community split over this topic, why not be reasonable and find a middle-ground? Honor those like Cadet Feld who are willing to risk their lives for this nation, but don't support war except as a last resort. I may be too idealistic, but I believe reason, not aggression, will eventually bring peace.

Michael Hall
astronomy freshman