SUV does Îmore damage to world' than bumper sticker

Monday's police beat featured an amusing story of a student who found a bumper sticker on his SUV featuring a message that he drives a weapon of mass destruction (true) and a link to www.idontcareaboutair.com. The poor soul complains that "he was unable to remove the sticker and expects his chrome bumper will be damaged."

Curious about this story, I loaded the site on my Web browser and can now supply helpful advice to the wronged SUV owner: A five-minute visit to the Web site will reveal instructions for removing the sticker with no harm done to your bumper, since "How to remove" is prominently featured on the main page. On the same Web site, you will also learn useful and pertinent information, specifically on how your SUV is doing a heck of a lot more damage to the world we all live in than a harmless, funny and informative bumper sticker.

Giorgio Torrieri
physics graduate student

Future probably does not hold bigger student section

After reading the letter published on Jan. 24 concerning the student section in McKale Center, I could not agree more about having a student section that would rival those of Duke and Maryland ("Bigger student section would create Îsixth man.'") A loud environment does a great job of creating communication problems between the visiting players, as I witnessed when the team visited Kansas over the weekend. Having a loud crowd is also a great motivator for the home team. Unfortunately, I doubt a change in the student section is going to happen in the near future.

I believe that McKale Center can be an intimidating environment at times, however the crowd can be disappointing. The reason why we won't be seeing much of a change in the student section is that the athletic department does not want to take the courtside seats away from the season ticket holders.

Most are older people, and they indeed do not always seem to be supportive. I have heard of people who prefer to watch the game with portable TV's and others who are actually knitting during the game instead of watching it.

The fact of the matter is that these season ticket holders pay big bucks for their seats, and the athletics department wants to keep the cash flowing. They want to keep these people happy by letting them keep their seats. The athletics department needs the cash anyway to help support other programs (i.e. football).

Besides, if I remember correctly, the athletics department experimented with a courtside student section. The students failed at meeting expectations and McKale Center went back to the seating arrangement that it is currently in now.

McKale Center is still a tough place to play, and the crowd does give a good effort at making noise when it counts the most. A better student section would be great, but unlikely. For now, let's just do the best we can with what we have to cheer on our Wildcats.

Elliott Lim
pre-business freshman

Right-to know bills offer women Îinformed choice'

I am responding to Kendrick Wilson's Tuesday column ("Anti-choice bill a big waste of time.") I have been surprised by the vehement opposition of so-called pro-choice groups to women's-right-to-know bills, because anyone in favor of a right to choose should support a fully informed choice. Mr. Wilson asserted that the only women who will be slowed down are the poor, the uneducated, and those intimidated by bureaucracy. These poor and uneducated women are precisely those in need of accurate and comprehensive information about abortion and alternatives! These women are not likely to be aware of the abortion procedure and its associated risks. They also may not know about the choice of adoption, parenting resources available to them, or their right to child support from the child's father should they choose to parent.

Mr. Wilson's assertion that giving women information about the gestational age of their unborn children tries to answer the question of when life begins is ludicrous. Gestational age is not a philosophical issue, but a scientific one (ask any OB/GYN). Abortion clinics themselves frequently refer to the gestational age of unborn children they abort, because it is an important factor in what method of abortion they use (an older, larger baby is more difficult to abort than a smaller, younger one). In fact, the abortion clinic advertised on the very Web page upon which Mr. Wilson's column appeared gives a graduated price scale based on gestational age. Women, too, should have the right to know the stage of development of their unborn children.

If abortionists already give women all the relevant information, why would a 24-hour waiting period to review information discourage women from having abortions, as pro-abortion opponents of the bill claim it would? Information that could affect a woman's decision to have an abortion is clearly relevant, and if it causes her to change her mind during the waiting period, it would indicate that she did not already know and consider this relevant information. More important, why are abortion proponents so upset that this bill could discourage women from choosing abortions? If pro-choice is about the right to choose, what is wrong with a woman making an informed choice not to have an abortion?

Sara Stuhan
President, ASU Students for Life
ASU chemical engineering senior

ÎGive it up': different views on abortion won't change

It amazes me how 30 years after the decision made in the case of Roe v. Wade, abortion is still debated in a nasty, bitter-filled way between the pro-life and the pro-choice. Pro-lifers will not be happy until abortion is made illegal under all circumstances, and everyone else in the world has to accept their view. Pro-choicers will not be happy until the pro-lifers stop telling them that a woman doesn't have a right to choose and everyone else in the world has to accept that women have that right.

With abortion, like any other issue out there, you can't force what you believe on other people. Everyone is going to have his or her own opinion on any and all issues no matter how much one agrees or disagrees. That is the price we all pay for freedom of speech in America.

After all, abortion is a very strong topic, where neither side is willing to come together and make compromises, but rather will look to hurt (possibly kill) those who disagree with them.

To those who are pro-life and pro-choice, give it up! Stop trying to force what you believe on other people. Even if Roe v. Wade was to be overturned tomorrow, people are still going to have their own beliefs on abortion. The world is not perfect and not every issue will be solved. If you continue to stress on this issue, you will miss out on the good things life has to offer.

Donald Wilson
sociology senior

Alternative punishment for people who pull fire alarms

Fire alarms at Coronado! What can be more entertaining than reading about yet another pulled fire alarm at Coronado residence hall (home to such phenomena)? Probably nothing, you're thinking. Well, as a resident, I would like nothing more than to severely impale the person/people that did this to 800 sleeping students. But fortunately enough, we live in a civil society that morally prevents me from doing so. If living in a dorm weren't a hard enough task, someone had to go and test my melatonin pills once again. I am sick of these games, so I am here to offer a few alternative punishments for the perpetrator(s):

I am uncertain about the punishment for pulling the fire alarm, but anyone caught doing so in any residence hall should be (no, not cited, as this would be too easy) tied up in front of Old Main with his/her eyes taped open for two weeks straight. Therefore, this person can be publicly humiliated and he/she will know what it is like to have to lose sleep and miss some important classes. Don't expel this person; rather, let his or her grades drop as a result like everyone else's when this event occurs.

Jacob Levy
pre-business freshman

KAMP's one dollar fee not much to ask of students

Among the many great aspects of UA culture lies the student radio organization KAMP. KAMP is student-run, as well as student-funded. To be honest, until Tuesday's edition of the Wildcat ("KAMP fee will go to vote"), I was in the clouds as to how this program is financially supported. First of all, the financial information for many companies is made public, but this right is rarely put to use by the masses. Secondly, the cost per student to fund KAMP comes to a $1 donation. One dollar! Donation! Despite anyone's spending reservations, one dollar will not break the bank. One dollar can be found under a car seat or at the bottom of a book bag. Even so, if any student struggles financially within the reach of a dollar lost, the Bursar's office refunds at his/her request. Be frugal!

KAMP radio stands for freedom and expression in a world that makes these desirable entities troublesome to find. ASUA needs to seriously contemplate, and hopefully reconsider, a decision detrimental to student life. ASUA's commitment is to represent the students, not to please the Board of Regents. I think some hindsight will be rockin' peoples' heads if KAMP goes under. I know I wouldn't want to be listening to those sounds. But if this passivity to stand up does lead to the breakdown of one of UA students' outstanding accomplishments, I'm sure the members of ASUA offering ÎYes' votes will be kind enough to supply directions for the nearest dollar store.

Garrett Hildebrand
undecided freshman

Government's marijuana ad unwise waste of tax money

The federal government's campaign against marijuana hit a new low this week with its Super Bowl ad claiming that pot leads to unwanted pregnancy. Although evidence perhaps exists for this claim, I found the government's exaggeration rather ironic in light of the numerous beer ads and other commercials glorifying T & A. Another half-million (at least) wasted in misinforming the American public. It's pathetic that the government could not spend its money (oops · I mean OUR money) more wisely, perhaps realistically showing alcohol as the true gateway drug to sexual dalliances. But then that would offend the corporate sponsors and the political donors, right?

Sean Duffy
U.S. history doctoral student

Admissions should not be based on legacies, quotas

As a student from India with no racial ties to African-Americans or Caucasians, I share no anger or support when it comes to the thought of affirmative action. It is an issue that has undermined post-secondary education in America. In India, we have a similar problem like affirmative action. Unfortunately, in India we have quotas at many colleges where people from castes (Brahmin to Dalits ÷ the untouchables) and from religions (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians) must be divided equally so that the politicians can boast Indians of all backgrounds can go to college. It seems like a good idea. Unfortunately, many brilliant students fail to meet the quotas and cannot go to the college of their choice. At the same time, I know many Dalits (many sadly call them "the untouchables") who would not be able to afford elementary school education without such quotas.

At the same time, a C-minus, alcoholic student from a family of rich politicians ends up in Yale. That would be President George W. Bush. In addition to affirmative action, legacy is also wrong. Almost all Republicans are against affirmative action, yet they are not against legacy. Why is legacy not an issue? Why do we forget that many children of many elite families of many industries and political associations end up in some of the best colleges? We always seem to pinpoint some "black" student and gossip about him. We never dare to even ponder about rich students. For example, Chelsea Clinton was at Stanford University. Many a time she never showed up to class. She entered as a pre-med student and ended up graduating as a history major. Imagine how many pre-med students were given rejection letters so Chelsea Clinton could be in Stanford. But we don't have time for that. Because many of us still need time to bitch about that "black" student?

Students should focus on their grades, study hard, and they will live up to their dreams. I got rejected both at home and here with an SAT of 1500. Oh well, I am not rich enough for legacy and not poor enough to get help from affirmative action. Furthermore, one billion Indians and one billion Chinese are boxed in as Asians in the country. Then we say too many Asians have "flooded" post-graduate positions. What's up with that? Our whole racial classification system is messed up.

Robert Balla
Pima Community College freshman

Legislature should make sacrifices, not bleed UA

For over two years the university has absorbed cuts of around $45 million and now I read that the Republican-led legislature, in their august benevolence, is thinking of cutting a further $35.2 million from our university. Of course money grows on trees around here and it's no big deal, right? Screw up the economy all you want up there in Phoenix and the good ol' UA will bleed until it's fixed.

I was just wondering if there's even one member of the governing body of Arizona who has cut back his or her office budget, fired excess staff or taken a reduction in pay to try to help balance the state budget crunch. As I recall, on last November's ballot the members our legislature asked for a rather large pay increase with the reasoning that "you get what you pay for." Why should they ask for a raise when the state is in crisis? Tell me, I want to know. The Republicans also want to cut benefits and retirement plans for university workers. I bet they aren't including themselves in this plan. I am less than two years from having state health coverage and other benefits I have worked 25 years for this and now the Republicans want to do away with it all. There are no polite words I could use to describe this situation.

Sam Marion
physiology research specialist

Increased income taxes, tuition would benefit UA

This is written in response to the editorial "Let's pay more and get more" in Wednesday's Wildcat. This editorial stated that we, as students, should bend over and take it in the rear so the state doesn't have to increase income taxes. The editorial says, "It makes more sense to raise tuition than state taxes. Why not have the people utilizing the tuition to pay for it?"

This seems logical enough. While we are at it, why not have people on welfare fund welfare programs? And let's have the homeless shelters charge rent. I'm not getting social security, let's have those on it pay for it. The reason we don't do these things is obvious, those who don't have the money need the extra help.

Why not let those who have benefited most from our society, and thus can afford the increased expense, pay? If the richest one percent were to have their taxes raised by one percent that would do more for the university than if all students were forced to pay an extra $1000 in tuition.

Alas, we are so afraid of taxes that we would rather see classes and departments cut than have the rich repay any of the wealth they have accrued from living here.

I for one don't mind a tuition increase, but it must be coupled with an income tax increase. After all, if there is money out there in private donation for construction, I think they can afford for the UA to skim a little off the top of their fat salaries.

Reuben Goodman
IDS senior

Affirmative action is racist against whites

I'm writing a response to a Thursday letter written by Mariam Durrani ("Affirmative action is needed; education is a basic right"). Somehow she believes that racism is ÎOK' as long as it benefits a poorer subclass within that race, which doesn't really make sense. She says that inner-city schools are not even comparable to Foothills schools, and so therefore the predominantly minority schools can't possibly have the educational opportunities of the rich ones. Well, just because your school sucks doesn't mean you can't ace your classes; in fact, it should make it easier to do so. Affirmative action is racism, plain and simple, but because it's against whites, it doesn't count, apparently. Now, rather than affirmative action, wouldn't a program where needy students, whatever their race, got money and a chance to get into UA be better than outclassing a whole race just because a lot of other members of their race are rich?

Just in case you didn't know from your three and a half years at UA, education is not a right in our republic (for we are indeed a republic, not a democracy). Our country grants those who work hard opportunities, as well as opportunities for the rich. If you don't work hard, why should you just get into a college by playing a race card? And even if you do work hard, why should someone in the same economic class as you who worked harder be out in the cold?

Edward Dobiecki
creative writing freshman