Attending events other than basketball won't solve problem

I am writing this letter in response to the many letters I have read in the Forum regarding "alternatives" to attending a UA basketball game. More specifically, this is to Patrick Mallee, who wrote in a letter that the answer to the lack of student seating in McKale is Wildcat baseball. I believe Mr. Mallee is comparing apples to oranges, among other things.

I don't want to go to baseball games. I also do not want to attend gymnastics matches, lacrosse matches, or swimming events. I want to go to a UA basketball game. Going to see a baseball game will not alleviate my desire.

I am not saying these teams don't deserve fans, I am just saying that I do not want to attend. I don't really care how good these teams do; they may be highly ranked, but their presence does not make up for my inability to get a ticket to a basketball game without having to try and deal with a mob riot or spend $500.

Just because another team does well or if there is ample seating does not mean people will want to attend their games. Let me give an example: I am from Chicago. We have two baseball teams, the Cubs and the White Sox. The Cubs games are almost always sold out, and Sox bleachers are usually sparse. The Sox on average have a much better record than the Cubs, who barely get to 0.500 most seasons. But that does not mean Cubs fans are going to migrate to Comiskey Park. This also goes for the Mets/Yankees, Lakers/Clippers, etc. People want to see the game they want because support for their team is important to them.

Here is a rather extreme example, but this is how Mr. Mallee's advice sounds to me. "Sir, I know you need a liver transplant, but we have no donations of that type on hand. We do have a great set of kidneys and a fabulous heart that you can have, though."

So if you are hungry for sporting events, go see the baseball team or hockey (team) play. If you are hungry for a Wildcat basketball game, well, you are pretty screwed. I guess we'll have to wait until someone realizes that the apathetic "fans" near the basketball court are a travesty to the rest of us fans who would be screaming our heads off.

Louis A. Nowaczyk II
general biology senior

SIRLS being cut to make more room for campus expansions

I have been perplexed by President Likins' plan to put the library school on the chopping block. The school's mission and goals are clear and grounded. The faculty is top-notch and the school's accreditation is not in question.

So why threaten to cut the SIRLS?

The Library school, an old motel renovated and converted to offices, is physically located where the future of the campus south of Speedway and the future campus north of Speedway will converge ÷ the southwest corner of (North) Cherry Avenue and (East) Speedway (Boulevard).

Already little bungalows in the neighborhoods west of the College of Medicine and College of Pharmacy are being razed, probably to make way for a new College of Public Health. There is a construction plan which over the next five to 10 years will see major building projects north of Speedway and west of UMC and the AHSC complex.

It will be important for the two sides of campus to connect in some way. Probably a kind of physical structure built over Speedway to do this is planned. Likins is simply saying this: Move your program and merge your program somewhere else ÷ or get cut.

Bruce Chandler
library school graduate student

Organization does not refer to U.S. troops as Īterrorists'

This is in reply to Justin Kunzelmann's pro-war letter on Feb. 12. Mr. Kunzelmann claims that the "Not In Our Name" organization tries to label U.S. troops as terrorists. But in actual fact, nowhere in that statement does it state or imply that U.S. troops are terrorists. Mr. Kunzelmann is simply trying to portray his wild inferences and poor definitions as if they were based on logic.

As evidence of his strange arguments, take this one. He claims that if protesters don't support their troops, then they have no right to be guarded by them. Hmm, that's odd. So it's worth sending our troops off to battle to fight for the idea of free speech (etc.), but not for those who would exercise that right? This would imply that we're sending troops off to risk their lives for ideas that only have abstract value, and that what we (are) really supposed to do is defend only those who agree with us politically.

My suggestion is that you read the Not In Our Name statement for yourself and use your own ability to reason. You can find the statement at www.nion.us. You might also be interested in the related Call to Conscience, on which you'll see signatures from veterans and current soldiers. This can be found at www.calltoconscience.net.

Incidentally, the signatories on the Not In Our Name project include some names you may have heard of: Dr. Patch Adams, Ramsey Clark, Ben Cohen, John Cusack, Steve Earle, Danny Glover, Martin Luther King III, Barbara Kingsolver, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Ozomatli, Bonnie Raitt, Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen, Kurt Vonnegut, and Alice Walker, among over 40,000 others.

In the words of the post-war German anti-war writer (and one-time Nazi soldier) Guenther Grass: "The job of a citizen is to keep his mouth open."

Patrick Bolger
second language acquisition and teaching