Department of atmospheric sciences: money well spent

In a recent Focused Excellence proposal by UA President Peter Likins, the department of atmospheric sciences was targeted for complete elimination. As a student of this department, there is obvious outrage at this decision, especially from those who are graduate students within the program. As was stated by Dr. Mullen, head of the atmospheric sciences department, "I have been left in the dark about this decision." With such a statement coming from the head of the department, it is quite obvious the department has no room to defend itself, and its importance to the University of Arizona and the at-large community of atmospheric sciences. Therefore, it seems it is time to learn about the consequences of the closure of this department.

To start, President Likins made the following comment in his press release, "The fiscal environment in which we are operating is threatening the overall capacity of the University of Arizona to maintain its reputation and quality in teaching, research and selected outreach. We must focus on fewer things and do those things very well." To supposedly maintain a fiscal environment for our education, we must go build and/or renovate two new student unions and the ILC. The cost of those buildings far exceeded $100 million dollars in the last five years of construction. Now consider this, the department of atmospheric sciences has a budget of only $457,000 a year. I see quite a disparity between the two numbers in question. The ILC alone cost enough money to fund a department as small as ours for the next 450 years. Fiscal responsibility was not in mind when these decisions were ever made.

To continue, the department has many well-known professors, such as Dr. Krider, a man who is one of the most prestigious lightening researchers. Then there is geography, where the department is the last one of its kind from within Arizona and New Mexico. There is the question of the National Weather Service, who just made a trek to the UA in order to provide the students hands-on learning experience within this field. I could go on but certainly hope President Likins realizes that the department is more of a gem to the professional community of meteorologists, and researchers, than it is on the cutting table because of red ink. It would be an extreme disappointment in an effort to do Focused Excellence.

Stephen W. Bieda III
atmospheric sciences senior

U.S. not always right, anti-war protestors not always wrong

Thanks, Steve Campbell, for explaining answers to all the questions raised by the anti-war protesters. I feel better already about the impending war. Seriously though, while you make a few compelling points about the anti-war movement, your arguments are left wanting. You say the one true message of peace activists is that the U.S. is always wrong. The fact is that the United States sometimes is wrong. Not always. Maybe not often. But sometimes. Maybe this is one of those sometimes, and I'd like for someone, somewhere to point that out.

You say that "the Bush administration will not let public opinion influence decisions made in Washington." Yikes! Exactly what freedoms are you in favor of others fighting and dying to protect for you? Saying "American soldiers had to go to war to preserve those rights" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sending troops into battle against a heinous regime that apparently had well-placed friends in Washington not long ago.

Since you didn't say, I'm assuming you have some credentials as a freedom fighter. I hope so, because if you don't, you'll fit right in with many other war dancers who sat out the appropriate round when someone asked them to stand up and defend their country. So, Mr. Campbell, I'll gladly hold your coat while you head off to defend your elite, unquestionable brethren in Washington. And remember to keep your opinion to yourself if you find it differs with the future folks in charge. Best of luck in your impending military career as your time in the trenches kicks in. Stay safe.

Bruce Kaplan
CCIT staff

Student tells Likins: ĪBuild me a freakin' parking space'

I am a returning student, having graduated from the College of Public Health in 2000. I have one question: Where are the damn parking spaces? I am taking classes, all of which start after 5 p.m., and I still spend 20 minutes driving around campus looking for some place to park. The space I found was three nautical miles away from my class. What do I have to do? Join some weird-ass cult just to be able to park somewhere on campus? I have actually looked into having my feet surgically removed just to be able to park in the handicapped spaces. It's just wrong. Here's an idea for President Likins: Take the thousand dollars that you want to increase my tuition by, run down to Home Depot, pick up some asphalt, and build me a freakin' parking space.

Shemuel Psalms
non-degree seeking graduate student

Anti-war protestors' efforts may reveal pro-war majority

In the article on Tuesday's front page, Carrie Brown of the Alliance for Peace and Justice in the Middle East (APJME) said she hoped that this protest would send a message to the Bush Administration. I think if one does the math, the message is loud and clear, although it is not the one she and her comrades hoped for. The population of the greater Tucson area is around 800,000 people, and the police say that around 2,000 people showed up to the protest. That means .25 percent (one quarter of 1 percent or one in 400) of the people in Tucson are protesting the war. To put this in perspective, 4,500 people on average attend the Icecats' games at the TCC, 7,100 when they play ASU. That means twice as many people attend club hockey in Tucson than participated in the anti-war protest. Even at the generous estimation given by the rally's organizers of 5,000 protestors, it only comes out to 0.625 percent, still less than 1 percent, of Tucson's population. What does this all mean? Most of Tucson either doesn't care, or more likely, is in support of Bush's protecting the American people against a sadistic and maniacal third-world potentate. I think the message was sent loud and clear.

Chris Simon
molecular and cellular biology senior