SAS is right, Likins should end support of private prisons

We support the Students Against Sweatshops' campaign to divest the university from Lehman Brothers, the leading lender to private prison corporations. Lehman Brothers was responsible for bailing out Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the country's largest for-profit prison corporation. In 2001, CCA's Florence Correctional Center made the news when it was discovered that a prison gang was effectively running the prison. Monitors reported lax security, widespread drug smuggling, assaults and rioting in the facility. In another CCA prison in Arizona, The Associated Press reported an investigation of numerous reports of sexual contact between guards and women prisoners from Oregon.

There are three reasons we oppose privatization of prisons: 1. It is inherently unethical for a private corporation to profit from depriving human beings of their liberty, because the very nature of the arrangement invites these companies to prioritize their profits over the needs of those in their custody. 2. Private companies do not have the same level of accountability to the public as state government agencies. This means that citizens have almost no say or power to challenge the actions of these corporations. 3. When human beings become the "raw material" in a business, there is a disincentive for the companies to rehabilitate. Indeed, it is in the corporation's interest to increase the number of people incarcerated in order to boost its profits or chances of winning additional contracts.

In a global economy, we are increasingly being encouraged to "vote with our dollars." We join Students Against Sweatshops in calling on President Likins to hold these private prison companies accountable. Let's vote with the university's dollars against prison privatization and against Lehman Brothers.

Caroline Isaacs
criminal justice program coordinator
American Friends Service Committee, Arizona

Ditch the basketball courts, check out Wildcat baseball

I want to address all of those people who have written in to the Wildcat looking for better seats at basketball games and an outlet for rowdy behavior at sporting events. I have a solution to your inability to release your pent-up Wildcat spirit and/or aggression. The answer: Arizona baseball.

For the past two weeks, myself and fellow die-hard 'Cat supporters have attended Arizona baseball games against Baylor, and the Friday before against BYU. We paid no money upon arrival and had incredible seats right behind the opposing team's dugout. We believe that we have been the x-factor in both of these games (wins). It is not like Arizona basketball; we are not surrounded by snowbirds who barely get out off their feet to applaud. Rather, we are ten feet away from the enemy, and they hear what we have to say. Yes, we are loud and too obnoxious as well, but we keep it clean and we leave no member of the opposing side without hearing at least one heckle ÷ including coaches, relief pitchers and water boys. We like the fact that coaches in the league have been complaining about us, and we don't mind when opposing players throw water at us (BYU), if it leads to a win then our job is done.

So I encourage all of you who feel that you cannot get involved in UA athletics to come out to a Wildcat baseball game. Bring a friend and get rowdy; get in the opposing team's head and enjoy Wildcat baseball. (We would also like to take this time to thank the team and coaching staff for the pizza that was delivered to our section during the game. We can't remember the last time that happened to us at a football or basketball game, probably because it has never happened.) GO ÎCATS!

Patrick Mallee
communication senior

Police should know red tags won't stop Îcrazy Wildcats'

This is in response to the Feb. 5 article about students getting more red tags: I wonder if the high amount of red tags being issued as of late have anything to do with President Likins' new Focused Excellence plan that is supposed to make the university not only survive, but strive in the future.

I think it is outrageous that 20 red tags are issued every weekend. Is there some kind of quota that the police department is trying to fulfill? The article mentions an 80-year-old woman's birthday party where a red tag was issued. I can't even imagine what a bunch of 80-year-olds were doing to cause such a violation that a red tag was necessary · Let me guess, it must have been her Frank Sinatra tunes blaring throughout the neighborhood that woke the entire street; I know that it would bother me.

If the police haven't figured out that there is going to be excessive partying, especially around a college like the UA, well then all I have to say is get a clue. Whether you issue 20 or 100 red tags per night, these crazy Wildcats are not going to become weak and succumb to the nonsense that you cops are trying to sell.

Chad P. Schneider
marketing senior

Anti-war guest commentary made Îmature, insightful' case for peace

My compliments to Noah Haiduc-Dale for writing the most intelligent piece I've read in the Wildcat over the last seven and a half years. I am retired military, and while I may not agree with the peace march, I did my job so people could express themselves freely and without fear. I too want peace without the threat of anyone denying another life and the liberty to pursue their dreams. His guest commentary is an example of how to get my attention with mature, insightful rhetoric instead of meaningless jargon and trite phrases. I don't know him, but I respect a person who speaks to me the way you did.

Chip Smith
optical sciences graduate student

Plans for Jerusalem flawed so far, international coalition needed

If one is going to be so presumptuous as to suggest a solution to a 2000-year-old conflict (like Steve Campbell in Tuesday's "Which road leads to peace in Middle East?"), at least have the balls to make a viable, concrete, long-term proposal. Singling out Yasser Arafat and calling for his resignation is not only biased, but also extremely shortsighted. Campbell offers three ineffectual "avenues of approach," but he leaves out the most logical, realistic and pro-active approach that has thus been called for. No nation-state should bear the responsibility of governing such an intensely holy land the likes of Jerusalem. Therefore, the control of Jerusalem must be relinquished to an international ruling coalition with Israel giving up power and Palestine giving up any future claim to the land. This is the only possible solution, given the historic tensions pervading the war-torn land. Yet no one, much less the United States or Steve Campbell, has the objectivity to advocate such a proposal. It's time to change.

Katherine Daubert
anthropology junior