ÎPeace rally' actually anti-Israel

On Wednesday, the Wildcat published a letter from Noah Haiduc-Dale, a graduate student and co-founder of the ASUA-approved club Alliance for Peace and Justice in the Middle East ("Pro-peace events deserve more prominent coverage"). Mr. Haiduc-Dale added to his letter that a peace rally sponsored by his club would take place yesterday at noon. I attended this event with fellow members of the pro-Israel group on campus, the Arizona Israel Alliance, and I was disheartened with what I saw.

A sign on the stage read, "For Israel, for Palestine, for peace." Members of our group brought signs with pro-Israel and pro-peace messages and held them up along with members and supporters of APJME. However, some members of the AIA were told they could not hold up signs near the stage when others were doings so. The speakers at this rally against "the war" spoke about Iraq and the impending war, but quickly started to focus their attention on Israel. One speaker went so far as to say that Israel is not a Jewish state. These were offensive comments aimed at Israel and its supporters. Attempting to make a moral comparison, one speaker said that if we bomb Iraq, we should bomb Israel.

The APJME is taking advantage of its non-partisan name to spread a very hurtful and biased message. Many people showed up to an anti-war rally but, by the end, left an anti-Israel rally. If ASUA plans to recognize such an organization, the club should have to change its name and message in order to show the deep anti-Israel bias the club harbors.

Avi Margolin
political science freshman

Israel bashing hardly Îanti-war'

I was very disappointed by the so-called peace rally on the UA Mall yesterday sponsored by the Alliance for Peace and Justice in the Middle East. This rally was advertised to the students as a rally against the United States attacking Iraq, a sentiment with which I personally agree. However, the rally itself was anything but an anti-war rally. It degenerated into a forum for the speakers to bash and make hateful comments against Israel.

The coordinators of the rally were aware of the message the speakers were delivering, and deliberately deceived every student who came to that rally expecting a pro-peace, anti-war rally as advertised in every document distributed by APJME. If APJME is truly a group dedicated to peace and justice in the Middle East, why did they organize a biased and anti-Israel rally on campus? True peace comes from both sides abandoning their myths and addressing the real issues. I hope and expect APJME to apologize to the campus community and be truthful and honest in advertising their programs in the future.

Charles Givre
computer science senior

Justifying bombings anti-peace

Yesterday, The Alliance for Peace and Justice in the Middle East held a rally near Old Main at noon. Though their intention was to promote peace and convince the public that the United States shouldn't invade Iraq, they totally pulled a 180 and attacked Israel, making it a scapegoat for all that is bad in the world. They spoke of how they wanted to promote peace and love throughout the world, yet said that the on-going suicide bombings are justified towards the Jewish people in Israel. If they wanted to show the public here at the UA that they're all about not invading Iraq and the general consensus of all around peace throughout the world, then why must they bring up Israel in their arguments at all in such a negative light?

Their rally today showed the true anti-Semitism that they are all about, and I hope others will speak out against this.

Zachary Colick
undeclared freshman

ÎNone of the above' for gaming

Folks, let's not be duped into thinking that we need to vote yes on any propositions. All the Indian-gaming propositions are about Arizona taking a piece of the gambling pie to help offset years of mismanaged state budgets. The Indian tribes are truly sovereign nations with their own governments, fire departments, police, etc. The idea that the citizens of the state of Arizona have any right to the meager income gained by the Indian casinos is cowardly. Our state legislators have made a horrific financial stink, and we've got to take responsibility for it. Putting any of the burden on the tribes is despicable.

What's really insidious is that we'll put this income as a hard line item in the budget, and rely on it. We all agree that our schools are a mess, but to pay for textbooks with any gaming, including the state lottery, puts our citizenry in the dubious position of supporting and promoting gambling. I'm not opposed to gambling on moral grounds, but counting on casino profits to help pay for education is an awful idea. This is some of the softest money you'll come across, and we shouldn't be in the business of pushing gambling because the solvency of our schools depends on it.

Don't forget that the lottery was sold to us on the grounds that "one-third of the money goes to the schools." What a load of hooey! Now we know that the dip in lottery participation is partially responsible for the sorry state of our schools. It's like the DEA relying on drug seizures and auctions to fund itself. They now find themselves as dependents of the very people they're fighting · but that's another can of worms.

Let's stop the nonsense and use sound methods of financing the state.

Remember Gov. Hull's idea of relocating state prisoners to county jails to help the state correctional budget? That's the kind of shady fiduciary thinking that's gotten us into this mess, and adding gambling monies to the mix is more of the same nonsense. Remember: Vote no on Props. 200, 201 and 202. You don't have to pick the lesser of three evils. They're all evil. Let's respect the Indian nations and get Arizona back on track. Let's focus on value-added industries to balance the budget, not financial shell games. And for heaven's sake, let's stop making bad decisions because someone invoked the mantra of "it's for the children."

Scott D. Dreisbach
laboratory manager
department of chemistry

Socialism not same as liberalism

While I realize that Mr. Dale's "You might be a socialist if · " column Monday was partly in jest, it isn't the first time he has misused the word "socialist." If our professors, as he suggests, are really impressing a socialist agenda upon us, shouldn't he at least know the definition of the word?

In the column, Mr. Dale implies that socialists believe everyone has to be equal. That is communism, not socialism. The central tenet of socialism is, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability." That is, everyone works, and everyone is paid according to their efforts. The primary difference between socialism and capitalism is that, under socialism, means of production are employee-owned, and so it's a universal system of profit-sharing.

That means that instead of profits being concentrated into the pockets of a few executives, they're distributed amongst everyone. Although the executives are likely to take a bigger piece of the pie, the scales would not be as lopsided as they are now. Socialism is simply an economic philosophy ÷ it has nothing to do with re-distribution of wealth, affirmative action, "anti-Americanism," welfare, environmentalism, or the rest of the traits Mr. Dale tries to attribute to it. While many liberals are socialists, not all socialists are liberals. For instance, I'm a socialist who is also pro-life, anti-welfare, pro-gun, and doesn't happen to think that people should be able to sue the Marlboro Man for their own mistakes. Like any sane person, most socialists are moderates, not buying 100 percent of either wing's dogma. This does not mean we are not passionate about our views, as pundits on both sides claim ÷ it just means that we don't let others define our views so that they fit under a single title. In summary, socialism isn't liberalism just as capitalism isn't conservatism.

Christopher Haney
soil, water, and environmental sciences graduate student

Pot smokers can be productive

Normally, I am content to internalize my reactions to the writings in the Wildcat, but Jason Winsky's, "Put Down the Pot" piece on Wednesday was the most arrogant and ignorant thing I've ever read.

First of all, the implication made by the title, "Now is time to put down the pot and get a job," that stoners are unproductive degenerates of society is flat out wrong. Last time I checked, the last president of this country was an admitted smoker. Obviously, Clinton wasn't too stoned to take us out of a trillion dollar budget deficit, make groundbreaking strides for healthcare, or become the first white southern governor to put civil rights on the front burner. Second, contrary to how Mr. Winsky generalizes the supporters of Prop. 203, this proposition is about pain. Four years ago, I watched my grandmother die of lung cancer, and it was the most painful thing I've ever witnessed. Yes, there are other ways to mitigate pain besides getting high, but they don't always work that well. I know this because my grandmother was on all of them.

Winsky also mentions the irony involved in cancer patients' wanting to smoke pot when marijuana itself is cancer causing. I don't think that my grandmother was too worried about acquiring more cancer while she was on her deathbed. And a message for those who oppose the decriminalization of pot and other drugs: The so-called "war on drugs" accomplishes nothing. The illegality of drugs is what provides the capacity for terrorists to make money off of them. Why? Because as long as the criminal underclass in this country has control over the drug market, it will remain profitable to sell them. So I will sleep well tonight knowing that you are providing the real aid to criminals and terrorists, not me.

Ben Mears
communication junior

Sughed: IMF and World Bank column misleading

I would like to thank Caitlin Hall for such a narrow perception of the IMF and World Bank. These "stipulations" that developing countries have to agree to are in the countries' best interest.

Your first stipulation: cutting social spending. Since when are health care and education the only programs classified under "social?" Aren't there public works projects, such as building a dam, or maybe even civil engineering, that fall under this category?

Your second stipulation: cut government spending. Last time I checked, our government spends more on military contracts, imports, and other items, than they do on job salaries. And whether that might not be the case now, jobs don't have to be cut just to save money.

Third: raising interest rates. You are right that this is justified in that it will combat inflation. Truth of the matter is, it actually works. In a developing country, to battle rising prices, a government will print more money. Bad idea ÷ that only leads to run-away inflation. To lower inflation, the interest rate has to go up.

Fourth: reducing, not eliminating, regulations on foreign business. I'm sure that there are a lot of different regulations on international business in other countries; however, not all of these have to do with "low taxes, lower wages, and the utter devastation of natural resources."

Fifth: cutting subsidies on basic goods. Really now, do countries need to subsidize grain for their population? If they are already growing it, why subsidize it? Also, just because something loses its subsidization doesn't mean that the price goes up.

Sixth: favoring exports over subsistence crops. Where did it say that they had to completely overhaul their agricultural system on the Web site? All that stipulation means is that they should grow crops on 49 percent of their land, and cash crops on 51 percent of their land.

By the way, I did visit www.globalizethis.com and it was actually very informative as to why people protest IMF and the World Bank. All I ask is that you show us what these nations can do on their own to help their situation improve, and not complain about why IMF doesn't give them their loan or eliminate their debt. Or better yet, show both sides of the story. This is a news organization ÷ you should try to inform the public, not give a one-sided story.

Rob Rubinstein
pre-business junior

Sughed: Cotton farmers should be subject to market competition

Amiee Weber writes that the 2002 Farm Bill is not a subsidy for the rich, but a way to strengthen America's agriculture industry in the long term. She berates Jessica Lee for not presenting a factual analysis of the state of Arizonan or American agriculture.

The Heritage foundation estimates over 10 years American farm subsidies will cost $462 billion, or over $4,300 per American household. What about that fact? Ms. Weber attempts to elicit sympathy for Arizona cotton farmers by pointing out that they averaged 32 cents a pound rather than the targeted 72 cents. Is anyone aware of another industry where there is a targeted price? Does Wal-Mart get to complain to Congress because they wanted to sell hot dogs for $2, but they had to lower the price to $1 to compete?

Ms. Weber goes on to state that Ann Veneman understands the issues important to American farmers. Who cares? I don't care what it is like to live on family farm. I don't care if small family farms are dying out without price controls and subsidies. American farms should be subject to the same competition or go under standard we hold most other businesses to.

As Ms. Lee was trying to point out, these subsidies not only cost Americans billions, but the true victims are the developing nations of the world. These countries can't afford to subsidize their agriculture and therefore cannot compete. It is time for Americans to let go of their romanticized notions of the farm. It's a business, plain and simple.

Todd C. Neumann
economics graduate student