ĪBless you,' Peace March honkers who oppose Iraq war

During the Peace March last Saturday, the marchers were greatly heartened by those who honked in support ÷ about one car in five ÷ as they drove by. If you honked, bless you! And I ask you to please take some additional small action in support of peace: Write your representatives, write the White House, wear a button, wear a bumper sticker, talk to your friends, talk to your family, write a letter to the editor!

Don't hesitate to speak out against the global cycle of violence: There are more in opposition to the war on Iraq than you think. If those who honked had marched instead, we would have had 10,000 marchers, instead of 1,000.

Margrit McIntosh
Specialist, ecology and evolutionary biology
curriculum development

Bush-bashing rhetoric weak, makes columnists look stupid

I read "Friday Face Off" almost every week, and appreciate the facts that each side brings into their arguments to help back their case, even though I do not usually agree with the opinions stated. But Mariam Durrani's column about Bush not having the brains to be our president was a classic Bush-bashing case that has absolutely no backing to it.

During Bush's presidential term, I have argued with many people about why Bush is a good president. One underlying response to my statements that seems to come out of the Bush-bashers is the issue of Bush's intelligence as judged by his weak rhetorical skills. In one great swoop, they skip his merits as a person and a politician and decide to make the weakest case possible, and that he sounds stupid over the radio or television.

While there has been a decrease of this talk, those resentful about his politics associate his decisions with his being mentally incompetent. Instead, I say to those who hate Bush, that they need to say why they dislike certain actions taken, not why they may think he has an IQ lower than his Democratic opponents. Bush-bashers need to start asking themselves why they disagree with an aggressive foreign policy, or why they think the tax-cuts were bad for the economy, or why we shouldn't crack down on immigrants breaking immigration laws. I get so annoyed listening to someone state that there should be a Democrat for president in 2004 for the simple fact that "Bush is stupid."

Instead of making the case that Bush is stupid, Bush-bashers make themselves sound naive for not arguing the issues and instead arguing the IQ. Bush is a smart man, whether you agree with him or not, even though his rhetorical skills may not show it. So I ask Miss Durrani and those who dislike Bush to next time think before you speak, or you may come out sounding as "stupid" as George Bush.

Matthew S. Harris
pre-business freshman

North Korea nuclear program requires more news attention

I am assuming there is some sort of justification in devoting over a quarter of Friday's "Nation & World" news to the substance abuse habits of a governor's daughter, even the president's niece. I'm sure this story has some obscure significance to someone out there, but to forfeit news of true value is unprofessional to say the least.

I haven't seen a single article in the Arizona Daily Wildcat on North Korea's admittance of sustaining a clandestine nuclear weapons program, and I have seen nothing of Pakistan's possible involvement in supplying North Korea with vital equipment to do so. I have not seen anything on the Florida judge's decision to dismiss the murder convictions of the King boys for a violation of their right to due process.

There are so many more significant and interesting news pieces to report on. Of all the things to mention, why Noelle? Perhaps a piece on how this may affect the election in Florida would be more informative. I am honestly interested in what qualifies as "news" for the Wildcat.

Joseph Scott
mathematics junior

Greedy U.S. patent system hurts HIV-infected countries

Tom McDermott may be well versed in U.S. patent law, but in his Thursday letter "Breaking patent law Īcovenant' corrupt policy by short-sighted," he displays a remarkable ignorance of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and a chilling contempt for human life.

To claim that patent abuse and greed on the part of pharmaceutical companies play no role in the dire lack of AIDS medicines in the developing world is, to put it mildly, patently stupid. Of the 40 million persons estimated by WHO/UNAIDS to be HIV positive at the end of 2001, approximately 95 percent were living in developing nations and the majority ÷ some 28 million persons ÷ were living in sub-Saharan Africa. Of these, fewer than 50,000 have access to the antiretroviral medicines (HAART) that have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the United States and other "first world" countries.

The reasons for this lack of access are, of course, multi-faceted; but central to the mix is the fact that Western pharmaceutical companies continue to price these medicines well outside the range of what those who most need them in the developing world can afford.

Tom rationalizes his affection for the patent system on the grounds that it is the sole incentive for innovation. However, this claim is grossly misleading in the context of HIV and HAART. Much of the basic science of HIV has been worked out by scientists funded by public moneys (tax dollars dispensed through NIH and NSF) and a majority of the 17 most effective antiretroviral agents discovered in the United States were developed using federal funds. In many cases, pharmaceutical companies have merely bought the patent rights to drugs that were fully developed in the public domain, e.g., AZT, and act as little more than manufacturers and distributors.

What is urgently needed now are alternative systems for the production and distribution of the fruits of this research that either bypass or co-opt the pharmaceutical companies and which ensure universal access to HAART for those living with HIV. This is a non-trivial task and there are many difficult obstacles, but you can bet that it would be accomplished if our leaders were as inclined to seriously confront HIV in the developing world as they are to instigate new wars and to sell more weapons. In that case, the patent issue would rapidly become moot.

Jay Taylor
ecology and evolutionary biology graduate student