School of Planning essential for Tucson's Îsmart growth'

On Jan. 14, in accordance with the so-called "Focused Excellence" plan, the UA released a list of programs to eliminate and simultaneously revealed its short-sightedness and lack of care for the Tucson community. I was alarmed to see that the School of Planning was on the top of this list.

The School of Planning actively promotes smart city growth, diverse communities, and mass transportation in Tucson through its curriculum. Cutting this department would leave Tucson as one of the few metropolitan areas in the United States without this educational tool for promoting balanced urban development.

The City of Tucson has repeatedly demonstrated it can make horrible urban development decisions, and the last thing we need is more second-rate planners coming in from other cities because we cannot produce our own.

Although the state's income may be temporarily declining, the population of the Tucson area certainly is not. Projections show that by 2020, the population will increase from around 850,000 to 1,210,000. More people, more traffic, more infrastructure demands.

In a time when smart growth and mass transportation solutions sensitive to Tucson's unique character are needed, the elimination of the School of Planning is a huge step backward for both Tucson and the UA.

As the university has demonstrated before, cuts at the expense of the local community's future will be made if no opposition is met. I just hope they don't focus their "Excellence" so much that we pay for it with more traffic problems and poorly planned subdivisions.

Ladd Keith
media arts senior

Should Focused Excellence plan be applied to football?

Using the same "logic" that administrators are using for "Focused Excellence," does that mean we should eliminate the football program? After all, there is a much better quality program already running at ASU ·

Patricia Scott
UA parent

Don't hold UA administrators responsible for budget cuts

Malik Hawkins writes in his Friday letter, "I simply cannot believe the load of crap this university has dumped on its inhabitants for the last decade" ("UA underestimates impact of extended university cut"). True, however, the source of the "crap" isn't Peter Likins or the administration (however top heavy they get with vice presidents), but up in Phoenix. It's the legislature we should direct our anger toward. For 35 years I have watched the UA be abused by those guys. The money to run the university comes from Phoenix, and only a small part from student tuition. A lot more comes in from grants as well.

The campus must be damaged and in drastic unfixable ways now because of what the legislature has done in its incompetence. I am so glad I graduated in the Î70s when this was a university, and it breaks my heart to see this place so abused. Likins is doing what he has to, so I don't place blame on him.

Sam Marion
physiology research specialist

Religious fundamentalists, not specific countries, are threats

In response to Erik Flesch's Wednesday opinion column, titled "U.S. endangers world peace by dodging war," his skewed logic as to what poses a threat to American interests is very entertaining but nonetheless wrong. First off, neither Iraq nor North Korea poses a viable threat to the United States. Regardless of being included in President Bush's so-called "Axis of Evil," these nations should not be confused with the maniacs who brought America to its knees that early September morning.

Even if Iraq or North Korea possess weapons of mass destruction, neither nation possesses the will to use them against American interests; they would not risk the obvious massive retaliatory strike that would follow. These weapons are meant solely as deterrents, much like America's nuclear arsenal during the Cold War. What direct threat does either Iraq or North Korea pose to the United States? They pose no more of a threat than the Soviet Union did so many years ago.

The threat is posed by groups of religious fundamentalists willing to strike the United States in a way that can end as many lives and cause as much damage as possible. Iraq and North Korea are not headed by regimes that hold such intentions. Their heads of government are motivated by nothing more than hopes of financial gain and personal power, and however irrational these leaders may seem, it is very unlikely that they would risk complete annihilation for the sake of furthering those hopes.

Furthermore, the United States cannot claim it is enforcing U.N. resolutions on its own. As far as the United Nations goes, it is the duty of the organization as a whole to enforce its own resolutions. If the United Nations cares nothing for its own credibility and refuses to enforce its own mandates, it is not the responsibility of any one member nation (or a handful) to do so.

Such an action on behalf of the United States may very well set a dangerous precedent for other nations to follow, and cause irrevocable harm.

Rigoberto Mabante
political science freshman

INS registration program increases national security

I take issue with Carrie Brown's Friday letter, "INS registration punishes foreigners, Îun-American.'" The registration program the INS is currently operating is most definitely enhancing our national security. As Brown points out, rational thinking dictates that only those with nothing to hide will register. That means that when we apprehend foreign nationals suspected of terrorism we can check if they have registered. If they have not, then we have reason to deport them. It is as simple as that.

To say that the registration system "violates our Constitution, which guarantees due process and protection from being searched without suspicion" is ludicrous! The Constitution only applies to American citizens, not foreigners.

Finally, to add to the stability and harmony that exists on campus, and to exonerate myself in the court of public opinion, I do not, will not, and have never supported violence, abuse, or mistreatment of any kind against anyone of any creed because of their beliefs. This includes (but is not limited to) Muslims and anyone else who follows the tenets of Islam.

Silas Montgomery
history and Judaic studies sophomore

War necessary to re-elect president, boost economy

This letter is in regard to Caitlin Hall's Friday column, "Of war machines and uprisings." Hall, I disagree with your last statement greatly. I do not believe that the American people have "the power to stop the invasion." Almost every single war that the United States has ever participated in has encountered strong opposition from a majority of the American people, and yet the government has continued to go forward with their original plans. This is no different.

I can almost guarantee that the United States will invade Iraq in the near future even if they have no weapons of mass destruction. Originally all the Bush administration wanted was to have Iraq "open their doors," so that the weapons inspectors could check for weapons. Since they haven't found any so far, the Bush administration is trying to find small insignificant excuses to go to war, claiming such things as Iraq is not doing enough and that they need to be more "proactive" to prove they have no weapons of mass destruction. The plain and simple fact is that the Bush administration needs this war to stimulate the economy and get Bush reelected.

Donald Jackson
undecided freshman

Protesters ignore double standards between parties

While reading Caitlin Hall's battle cry to the liberals to protest this weekend, I thought about all the complaining the left has been doing ("Of war machines and uprisings," Friday). They complained about attacking Afghanistan when it was clear al-Qaeda was using the country to train terrorists. Presently, they complain about the United States going to war with Iraq. In both cases, liberals believe that the United Nations can somehow negotiate with Hitler-like dictators. At least they feel this way when Republicans reside in the White House. It is interesting that under President Clinton our country bombed Iraq but even more importantly, Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was in the middle of a civil war that had nothing to do with the United States, yet President Clinton still felt it was his duty to bomb Belgrade until the Milosevich regime collapsed. Our bombs even hit the Chinese embassy, which could have led to tension with Beijing. Regardless of all this, there were no mass demonstrations from tie-dyed hippies and Hollywood liberals from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco. No one called Bill Clinton a warmonger.

The double standards are just amazing. Feminists went after Justice Clarence Thomas in a witch-hunt fashion for sexual harassment, but turned a blind eye to Bill Clinton's obvious treatment of women. Leftists attacked Senator Trent Lott for statements made at a birthday party when they have former Ku Klux Klan member Robert Byrd representing West Virginia and President Clinton, who as governor created a Robert E. Lee day in Arkansas; praises his mentor, a pro-segregationist former senator, regularly; and was quoted for saying the N-word multiple times. Now there seems to be a major double standard in the anti-war movement as well. The "Peace Movement" is merely a political weapon that liberals use against Republicans. Democratic presidents can do whatever they want by calling attacks "peace missions," but a Republican going after America's enemies after Sept. 11 brings out every filthy, brainwashed, America-blaming peacenik to the front lines as if it were Vietnam all over again. The reason the anti-war movement is going nowhere is simple: moderate Americans have caught on to the left's double standards, whether the issue is race or war.

Charles A. Peterson
history junior

ÎSheer comic genius' marks Meszler's ÎSay Home' strip

So, Niall O'Connor has a problem with the comic "Say Home" ("Unfunny ÎSay Home' comic needs touch of originality.") Not since the glory days of "Pickle" have I been so thoroughly impressed by a comic strip. So Chris Meszler, I salute you for your endless pursuit of witty prose, biting commentary, Picasso-esque drawings and sheer comic genius. Don't let one bad apple spoil the bunch. I was doing a bit of detective work and discovered that the Pokey the Penguin Web site had only one hit last week. Wonder who that could be, Mr. O'Connor? And as we know, Meszler, critics are only critics because they cannot follow their dreams like you or I can. Keep up the good work, Meszler, and someday I will give serious thought to taking a gander at your fine piece. Perhaps even hanging one on my refrigerator. Meszler, you have been a delight.

Rock on!

Nikolaus Turner
business management senior

Friday ÎSauce' comic about group homes Îdistasteful'

I am writing to express my disgust that the distasteful "Sauce" comic on Friday, Jan 17 was printed. I personally have a loved one that is in a group home because of health problems. Probably others of your readers also do. It hurts bad enough to be in this kind of situation without someone mocking it as L. Tiscione did in the Sauce comic. I think the Arizona Daily Wildcat and L. Tiscione owe all of us in the university community an apology for this callous, uncaring and mocking rendition of someone being institutionalized.

Also, my loved one gets a pass depending on her health and behavior at the time. To poke fun of someone being "grounded" is in very poor taste. Can't the Wildcat have comics that are funny and clean rather than put-downs?

Donald Rohrback
UA groundskeeper

Negative comment about ÎSimpsons' unwarranted

This is in response to Jessica Suarez's Golden Globe picks. From the picks that she made, I am not sure if Suarez actually watches television or not. "The Simpsons" is in its 13th season and still pumping out hilarious shows. After 13 years, it is amazing that any show can still write new funny material. Secondly, "The Sopranos" season finale was a disgrace to the show. The failing marriage of Tony and Carmela may add some nice drama to the show next season, but the "The Sopranos" needs to remember its roots and add some more brutal mafia violence that made the show popular in the first place. Don't get me wrong, "Six Feet Under" is a great show and so is "Curb Your Enthusiasm," but the negative "Simpsons" comments were unwarranted and unappreciated.

Chad P. Schneider
Marketing senior