ÎCinema Showdown' should have reviewed ÎSolaris,' not Soderberg

I've been reading Mark Betancourt's and Lindsay Utz's "Cinema Showdown" for the past few months, and Thursday's column, concerning Soderberg's latest film, "Solaris," has to be the least tolerable installment yet.

OK, we get it. You don't like Soderberg. Rather, you've read about how pretentious he is, and so you project that into his films while watching them. I agree that "Solaris" wasn't a quality film. It was slow, self-indulgent and far too long, given the subject matter. It lacked character development and the dialogue was atrocious.

Eventually, you two got to that, but that was after two columns' worth of bashing the director, based on whatever tainted interview you read or gossipy sound byte you heard on television. I'll agree; I think Soderberg is a self-absorbed nitwit, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of his films.

His faith in his own personal genius does not reflect one way or the other on his movies. You wrote entire paragraphs mocking what you imagined his directing style to be, the things he would say, and even how he dresses; that has nothing to do with the quality of his finished product. You're supposed to be reviewing a film, not a director. Save your adorable postmodern, anti-Hollywood banter for whatever Internet movie forum you post your hallowed opinions on, and write a film review next time, please.

Zac Bertschy
media arts senior

Cutting federal taxes for national parks Îdoesn't seem right to me'

Brian Hawkins (Thursday letter, "Collecting funds for forests a simple and fair solution"), I don't think you fully understand the issue of the fee demo program in our national parks. There are national parks all over this country, and the fee demo has been implemented in all of them.

Thus, your argument that people in Georgia shouldn't have to pay for national parks in Arizona makes no sense. We are paying for the national parks in Georgia just as much as the Georgians are paying for our parks.

The parks are a public service, like defense, education and highways. Everyone pays for them through taxes, and everyone has a right to use them. The real issue of the fee demo debate is whether or not the national parks should remain public. By removing funding through taxes, and requiring only those who use the parks to pay for them, the parks lose their status as a public resource. If this happens, many citizens with less financial resources will be unable to use them.

In addition, use of the parks will cost more for each user, since the number of people funding the parks will be lower. However, the portion of the population that does not use or want national parks will no longer have to support them. This doesn't seem right to me.

National parks were set up to be a public service shared by all, and they should stay that way.

Kris Brown
electrical engineering junior

FDA investigation must prompt animal care program overhaul

This is a response to your Dec. 2 story "Researcher under FDA investigation since 2000" regarding Frank Marcus, under investigation since Dec. 12, 2000. I hold a doctorate in experimental psychology from Arizona State University and have reviewed documents regarding the Marcus group obtained by a former Tucson state legislator.

Drs. Marcus and Wilson-Sanders maintain that this situation simply is a matter of differences in record keeping requirements. However, most researchers would maintain accurate and complete subject records, would verify that all data were archived properly (a minimum of three years), and would not use anesthesia equipment that had been neither cleaned nor calibrated since 1996. These practices, not adhered to in the Marcus group, are standard for science. No agency has to tell you to do this.

In an e-mail dated Nov. 1, 2000, Wilson-Sanders wrote, "Dr. Marcus' group is notorious for making mistakes with which animal goes where, keeping their own records accurate, and knowing when something is GLP." Apparently, Wilson-Sanders knew for some time prior to the FDA inspections that ended in October 2000 about problems in Marcus' group, but nothing was done to remedy them.

Although Drs. Marcus and Wilson-Sanders maintain that the confusion arose because Marcus had never done a GLP study, according to FDA records, Marcus indicated to inspectors that he had conducted a prior GLP study. Six days after the FDA inspections, Wilson-Sanders also e-mailed the IACUC that four different medical companies sponsored Marcus and that some of these studies were to have been conducted under GLP standards. Either Marcus had indeed conducted previous GLP studies, or Marcus had also done equipment testing for other firms besides Bard, in violation of FDA regulations.

Dr. Marcus could not produce approved protocols for two studies; he did not compile the final report on the Bard studies; discrepancies were noted in some of the raw data that could be found and in the final report; questions were raised about the size and locations of lesions produced by the Bard device in at least some of the dogs; and vice president for research Richard Powell himself wrote in June 2001 that Marcus should be sanctioned.

This is not simply a matter of poor record keeping ÷ although in science, poor record keeping is serious business. The penalties considered by the FDA include sanctioning the entire university.

Irrespective of the measures taken to bring the UA into compliance with the FDA and to, as Dr. Powell wrote, "eat some crow," what should happen is a full investigation into IACUC oversight of laboratories at your institution, permanent sanctions against Dr. Marcus precluding him from conducting GLP studies, and restructuring of your animal care program and IACUC. What happens if someone is seriously injured after use of a device tested in the Marcus lab in which questions were raised about data and subjects?

Patricia Haight, Ph.D.
Southwest regional director,
In Defense of Animals

Liberals are to education what conservatives are to the military

This is written in response to Shane Dale's piece, "Unbiased profs deserve special recognition," in which he rants about "Liberal professors." Why could it be that professors would lean left? Perhaps because Democrats give a damn about the education system in this country. It's the same reason the military leans right. Tell you what, Shane: You go campaign for military liberals, and I'll take your argument as "unbiased."

Reuben Goodman
IDS Senior

People looking for intolerance and discrimination will find it

A couple of years ago, I read a letter to the editor in which a fellow student had essentially advocated outlawing public criticism of the government. Flabbergasted and enraged, I wrote a scathing reply that was published. A few days later, he (the student who had written the first letter) contacted me via e-mail to let me in on the joke: He had been writing for the Arizona Daily Wildcat for some time, essentially quoting old Stalin-era Soviet propaganda, primarily to see if anyone in the student body would notice or respond to the totalitarian drivel he was spouting. Apparently, I was the only one who had noticed (or at least cared enough to reply).

Why do I bring this up? Donald Wilson's letter (Dec. 6, "UA discriminates against those who are Îdifferent'") left me hoping that I was reading another joke. "If the UA claims it doesn't tolerate discrimination against this group (overweight people), why does it allow the sale of Slim-Fast?" Are you serious? Does selling Claritin constitute discrimination against people with allergies? Corrective lenses discrimination against myopics? Razors, depilatories and wax discrimination against people with unsightly body hair? Speaking as a hairy, nearsighted allergy sufferer myself, I am quite happy to be discriminated against.

Assuming you aren't kidding, Mr. Wilson, know that I say this not to be mean, but out of genuine concern for you as a fellow human being: Get a grip! If you go looking for malicious discrimination and intolerance everywhere, you will find it everywhere. If you let it paralyze you, you will never accomplish anything. If you find the insular environment of a university campus hostile, just wait until you have to deal with the rest of the world.

Brian Hawkins
neuroscience graduate student

For Îopinion-free lectures,' quit poly-sci and try science, music

Shane, Shane! You are a political science student. You complain that most professors are leftists, and you can't seem to attend an a political lecture. Did you come into the field without an opinion of your own? I think not, after reading a couple of years of your right-wing rants in the Arizona Daily Wildcat. If you want political opinion-free lectures, try chemistry, biology, math or music. The UA is much more than just political science.

Shane, the professors here at the UA reflect the political leanings of the community at large. I happen to work for a Republican, but politics are not the business of our workplace. If you don't like it here, try Bob Jones University or maybe Texas A & M (but get a haircut if you do, boy).

Shane, get a clue about politics: It's all about accruing power and influence so that you can screw those you disagree with. To get ahead, you have to compromise your beliefs to get the money to run the campaign to get the office you want and then either kiss the ass of those who paid your way, or be a one-term-er with your own agenda. Or you could be that rare individual like Barry Goldwater. Lord, I wish he was still around.

Me? I'd rather do science and report the truth of what I have measured. Say "politician" and I think of all the scandals and crimes caused by Republicans and Democrats. What a rotten and dishonest life to lead. And all because of the lust for power.

Sam Marion
research specialist,
department of physiology

History suggests Israel not eager to end occupation, start healing

The two letters (Dec. 4, "Arabs want destruction of Israel, not Îthe ending of occupation'"; Dec. 5, "Israeli withdrawal from West Bank would not bring peace") responding to Carrie Brown's Dec. 3 guest column "Ending Israel's occupation is a moral obligation" calling for an end to Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territories conveniently forget one thing: Israel's political history. Turning an ignorant eye toward Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories only serves to place blame on the Palestinians.

Arafat certainly should have responded to the Camp David offer in 2000 with a counter-proposal, but the offer itself was not as "generous" as argued. Perhaps looking at Israel's policy toward the territories, and peace over the last 30 years will help explain Arafat's skepticism of the situation.

In 1977, the Likud party platform stated that, "Judaea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration." While Prime Minister Begin made peace with Egypt, he did so in part so that he could consolidate his claim to the West Bank.

Fast-forward 35 years. Settlement building in the territories has never ceased. Is this the policy of a government that is willing to return illegally occupied land in exchange for peace? The real race in Israeli politics recently was between Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu. The former has suggested a "state" in isolated pockets of Palestinian territory, while the latter has declared that there never will be a Palestinian state.

As Carrie Brown suggested in her column, it is in everyone's best interest for the United States to demand an end to Israel's occupation. Israel's claims to statehood are valid, but so are Palestinian demands. One response to Carrie suggested that ending the occupation will not end the violence. That is a possibility, but it is not a risk. Things can't get much worse than they are now, and ending the occupation can only serve to begin the process of healing.

Noah Haiduc-Dale
Vice president, Alliance for Peace and Justice in the Middle East
Near Eastern studies master's student