Disappointing ASA policy cost board great director

I wanted to write regarding Monday's article about Jenny Rimsza's resignation from the board of the Arizona Students Association ("Student lobbyist quits over revoked voting privileges"). I served on the ASA board for three and a half years during my time at the UA and worked closely with four student body presidents.

At no time during my years serving on the board was I instructed that I did not have the right to vote my conscience on issues presented before me. I am disappointed to learn that Jenny was instructed that she was not allowed to exercise her right to vote according to her views. The purpose of appointing delegates to serve on the board is to ensure that the views of all students are fully represented. The student body president appoints individuals that he/she feels are intelligent, competent persons who have the ability to process information, form an opinion, and based on their judgment and experience, enter a vote that will impact students across the state.

When directors place their votes at ASA meetings, each campus is referred to as a "delegation." The voting structure of the ASA board does not demand that ASA directors base their votes on the opinion of the student body president. When a vote is called, the student body president enters his/her own vote, and then each director within the delegation enters his/her vote. The vote of the student body president is not considered to be of greater value or importance, nor do the delegations vote as a bloc according to the student body president's vote. The ASA board encourages directors to use their judgment and vote their conscience.

I worked with Jenny Rimsza during my last year at the UA and was thrilled that she would be taking over my responsibilities as a board member of ASA. She is an extremely intelligent, hard-working, generous individual who truly believes in ensuring that students across the state are represented well by ASA. I am extremely disappointed that her time on the board has ended.

Kelly Dalton
Legislative Assistant
Sagamore Associates

ĪBless you,' Tucsonans who didn't honk for war protest

I'd like to second Margrit McIntosh (Monday, "ĪBless you,' Peace March honkers who oppose Iraq war") when she says "bless you" to all the people who honked their support for the protest last Saturday ÷ as she put it, about "one car in five."

Thank you for voicing your support of the anti-American agenda. Thanks to your honks, I can go to bed comfortably, knowing that 80 percent (or four cars in five) of Tucsonans still have some common sense. Thank you!

Anthony W. Nelson
criminal justice senior

World must fight tyranny as it did in World War II

A protest such as the anti-war protest this past Saturday is allowed under our constitution, which is to be respected, but many of you don't acknowledge ramifications of the situation. The fact is we are or soon will be at war. Nobody likes war ÷ people die and lives are disrupted, but do you remember what happened 63 years ago? The greatest war of the 20th century started.

The ten years prior were met with much the same philosophy about war. However, Adolf Hitler came about. Many people thought that appeasement was the solution and desperately wanted to maintain peace both in Europe and throughout the world.

What happened instead was a war that ended with the involvement of many nations and 60 million causalities. I write today not to change your opinion but to make you aware of past history and the fact that it is happening again.

In the 1930s, one man, Winston Churchill, spoke out against Nazi Germany. He, like President Bush, was ridiculed and called a fool, a warmonger. Churchill, however, was right and was there when the world needed a leader to fight oppression and tyranny.

This is unfortunately the case once again. To you who protest, you have the right to do so, but consider this: If you lived in Iraq or Nazi Germany, you couldn't protest ÷ freedom isn't permitted. The war we fought 60 years ago and the war we are about to fight are not for oil or territory, but for the goal of ultimate peace and freedom. Without the millions of people throughout the 226 years of our existence as a nation who died in war and in the name of liberty, we would not be able to protest.

History has told us that appeasement isn't the solution to a tyrant bent on death and destruction, both of his own people and of others. It is our duty as a free nation to fight against tyranny such as that in Iraq.

Evan Lytle
materials science and
engineering senior