Let's improve student life, not alumni life

I have been waiting for someone to ask what Dmitry Rashnitsov has in his letter yesterday entitled, "Alumni should fund students, not tickets," and I praise the Wildcat staff for printing it. He is absolutely correct. I am appalled that the alumni are funding a monument to themselves in front of the Administration building, which houses the only overpaid employees at any educational institution: the administrators.

I give money to my high school in California and to the University of San Francisco, where I received my bachelor's degree. I don't make much money, but I give what I can to these two schools every year because they treated me so well and gave me invaluable teachings academically and in life. And I can view the Web sites and visit the campuses of those schools and see all of the benefits my contributions and those of other alumni are directly giving to the students.

No matter how wealthy I ever become, the UA will never see 1 cent of my money. The tuition increases and general disinterest in student welfare have led to my decision to terminate my graduate studies and return to employment in the real world with my degree from USF. And through my work as a TA for introductory biology from fall 1998 to spring 2003, I saw most UA undergraduates receiving substandard treatment as well. I would not have made it through college if I had been treated as undergrads at the UA are, but I was treated like gold at USF, and I smile and feel proud whenever I reflect on my time there. When I reflect upon my time at the UA, I am bitter.

The significant benefit from my time at the UA was the wonderful staff and students I met through my TA position ÷ both mostly mistreated, and the staff mostly underpaid.

If the alumni want to throw money around, how about funding increases in staff benefits and wages, which are sad even by Arizona standards, and improving student quality of life with increased faculty and smaller classes?

Patrick Leach
soil, water and environmental science graduate student

Iraq comparison unfair, unjustified in comic

Dave Low's Tuesday "B-Fish" comic was not funny, for a change.

There is no logical equivalence between overthrowing a repressive ruling party that sponsors terrorism and systematically exterminating an ethnic group. As it reads, the joke is unsophisticated mainstream dummy political smear "commentary," rather than the clever play on words ("Iraqis" and "Iroquois") that Low is known for and may have had in mind. I'll give him a tiny benefit of the doubt because the latter kind of humor, which Low ÷ like Gary Larson ÷ is usually good at writing, I actually like.

For what it's worth, I think a less logically fallacious and less politically obnoxious joke would have had Bush overthrowing the Iroquois leader. That would have been funny.

Erik Flesch
geosciences senior

Right to smoke doesn't actually exist in America

So you consider the column "Government should not infringe on smoking rights" as one of "the best in last week's editorials from college campuses across the nation"? What a joke ÷ that inane diatribe sounds like it was written by a brain-damaged smoker!

I have news for the idiot that penned those words: No one is forcing smokers into smoke-free environments, to which we ALL have a RIGHT.

Contrary to the ignorance of that writer, government has a need, right AND obligation to exercise its prime directive: to protect the health, safety and welfare of all of the people. Prohibiting the release of the witch's brew of carcinogens and poisons in tobacco smoke around others most certainly fulfills those directives.

Smokers have no more rights than the other 84 percent of Americans. There has never been and never will be any "right" to smoke around others. Smoke-free air is good for people and for establishments. Only the tobacco people and their "friends" continue to dispute the facts.

Dave Johnson
psychology senior

Hall and Oates review disrespectful, inaccurate

I just read Gabe Joselow's article about Hall and Oates in your newspaper. I am appalled at his disrespectful attitude towards Daryl Hall, John Oates and their fans. I have been a fan of Hall and Oates my entire life; I don't ever remember not hearing their wonderful music on the radio. I cannot believe that Mr. Joselow would belittle a band that is doing a benefit concert for his own school ÷ that is very rude. I am sure if he would have asked more students a lot of them would have heard of Hall and Oates. If you listen to the radio, you hear their songs all day long. Also, Mr. Joselow is incorrect stating that the Rolling Stone gave their current CD, Do It For Love, a bad review. On the contrary ÷ it was a good review and the CD has sold well.

Charlotte Bordelon
Metairie, La.

Comic shows lack of respect for president

We would like to comment on the ridiculous comic by Dave Low on Tuesday. Although we have come to expect a regular, measured amount of liberalism and anti-Bush sentiment throughout your paper, the aforementioned strip represents a new and outstandingly offensive low. This "comic" attacks the current administration and its foreign policy on three fronts: It is anti-war, it is an attack on Bush's intelligence and it implies indiscriminate "extermination" of races during the campaign in Iraq and elsewhere. If you don't agree with the war, that's fine. The anti-war stance taken by Dave Low is not what is offensive. To imply that the president cannot differentiate between "Iraq" and "Iroquois" is a blatant attack on his intelligence and decision-making abilities. This should be offensive to Democrats and Republicans alike. To write "systematically exterminated" about a campaign that has gone out of its way to avoid civilian casualties and has, indeed, helped to free a nation of a true "exterminator" is outrageous. Write all you want about your dislike of the war, but don't make such brash and baseless claims about our president.

Kara Karlson
journalism junior

Amelia Hinsdale
political science sophomore

New ticket selection procedure needed

What the McKale Center needs is not a larger student section; it needs students who are actual fans. Unfortunately, our school is comprised of students who are mostly from Arizona and Southern California where showing up fashionably late, shooting the bull and leaving early is tradition.

With 5:36 remaining in the first half, I should not be allowing someone to scoot past me to find their seat, like I did Thursday. Students have many opportunities to attend UA sporting events on and off campus, but want basketball tickets because it's the place to be seen.

The Zona Zoo pass is a start, but more needs to be done.

A point system should be put into place to award the individuals who contribute to Wildcat athletics. A Zona Zoo pass would not have guaranteed anything for me this year, despite not missing a home football game in two years, having Friday night Ice packs for the Icecats and attending at least one baseball and softball game during each homestand.

The system should also award those who travel to see the Wildcats, like football and basketball games in Tempe. We swipe our CatCards to get into the Rec Center, to deduct from our meal plan, to make copies, etc. We have to show our CatCards at all sporting events, so why not make it useful and swipe the card into our account, showing that we attended a sporting event?

The process of elimination would be much easier and nullify the individuals that only buy a Zona Zoo pass to be put into the basketball lottery.

Simply put: If you are a Wildcat fan, show it.

The crowd at the McKale Center is pathetic. But it's not just the geezers, it's the students as well.

While we complain about not being able to be the Duke or Stanford crowd, I don't see anyone making an effort with what we have now.

Sure, we have our Zoo Keepers, who do a fine job, but where is the hexing of players, the constant chanting, the stomping, the shaking of the floor, the unison of everybody wearing one color, the waving of arms, the yelling to the point where CBS cuts to show the decibel level?

If there are only 2,200 students, make it sound like there are 4,400, 6,600, 8,800 ·

Students, if you want to voice your opinion, start by doing it at the game.

Travis Burns

journalism sophomore

Column reveals typical liberal tactics

I found Brett Barry's column titled "Journey to the mind of an ultraconservative" quite perplexing. At the close of the article, it states in italics that Brett Berry does not consider himself to be liberal nor a conservative. I do understand satire, but don't understand how someone can say horrible lies about conservatives and libertarians (the political right and center, respectively) and then say he is not liberal (what else is left?).

I'm guessing that the article was written with tongue in cheek, but it is obvious that the satire is very thinly veiled. I wonder how many of the countless left-wing extremists that read his article thought Mr. Berry's "parody" was on the mark (I'm guessing beyond the 90 percent range). Similarly, when Michael Moore was called on the carpet for the lies he perpetuated in the equally disingenuous "Bowling for Columbine," he made remarks like, "How could there be errors in comedy?" This is the new left-wing strategy: Make up horrible lies about your enemies in a joking manner, and when someone discovers your lies, just say they were a joke. If you don't believe me, just read any of Al Franken's books.

Mr. Berry's lie about libertarianism I found to be particularly perverse (speaking as a Libertarian, of course). Libertarians do want government and taxes; we just want both to be at levels that are fair to all Americans. In fact, since Libertarians are the only interest group in this entire country that considers all Americans equally (even those horrible rich white people ÷ Gasp!!! You mean they are actually considered people also?), we are the only political group to actually have true morals. You see, collectivism is inherently unethical due to the use of the force of law to coerce everyone to take part. Collectivists quickly counter that claim with the lie that the ends justify the means. However, ethical ends cannot be justified with unethical means.

As for Mr. Berry's request to counter his article with something original, I would implore him to heed his own advice. I would hardly call making fun of the political right in a liberal university publication a unique idea, especially since most liberals haven't had an original thought since the summer of love in '67. Most of them just regurgitate the nonsense that is written on other people protest signs.

If Mr. Berry or any other bleeding heart has a problem with my words and ideas, please don't write in response, because it's just satire.

Michael Williams
finance junior