Stealing from U-Mart ends with unequal punishments

It was reported last week in Police Beat that a student was arrested after stealing a pizza from the U-Mart and booked into Pima County Jail. Why the harsh punishment? Perhaps this individual does not play on the men's basketball team, because if he did nothing would happen to him. I am not saying that this person's actions should go unpunished, but I am asking for fair punishment to all who break the rules.

Mark Arneson
environmental science sophomore

Petty gender bias evident in Cat Poll on basketball

I was surprised to find the choices, "Like anyone cares about the women," "Women are always better than men," and, "Sadly it looks that way," when asked if the women's basketball team was better than the men's in the Cat Poll on March 2. While the poll is not a serious forum for gender bias discussions, the answers sound like playground taunts, which is frankly a little silly for a college paper. And while the merit of either men's or women's sports can be debated, let's face it ÷ the men's team isn't doing so well, and the women's team is not well-known for being all that great, either. If the poll creator planned to incorporate gender bias into the answers, please don't assume that readers agree with his or her assumption that one sex is better than the other.

At some schools, both the men's and women's teams get equal coverage because they are both good and exciting to watch. Imagine it not making a difference what is between a person's legs when he or she dribbles a ball! Both fans of the UA men's team and the University of Tennessee's women's basketball team would agree: It's all about the love of the sport, not the gender of the person playing it. It's not sad at all if one is ranking better than the other, just fortunate for members of the team. What is sad is that the poll somehow made it onto the pages of our newspaper and that people answered the question. Maybe the respondents of the poll are of the "weaker gender."

Kathleen Crowley
finance junior

OutKast number offensive to American Indians

In Tuesday's paper, Brett Berry unfolded his grand idea that would solve the issue of censorship as well as the issue of racial stereotyping. His plan for those offended by the racial stereotyping that occurred on the Grammy Awards show was to simply "change the channel." I was amazed that an act as simple as changing the channel could solve all the years of racial stereotyping American Indians have suffered and are desperately trying to stop. I wonder why no other scholar has thought of his solution. Since Brett Berry appears to be knowledgeable when it comes to American Indians (because he has watched so many movies and television shows) I would like to ask him a few questions. When OutKast performed their song "Hey Ya," what was the song that they opened their performance with? That song was a sacred, traditional song for one particular tribe. What tribe was that? The Dine, otherwise known as the Navajo. Where is the Navajo tribe located? Right here in Arizona, as well as New Mexico, Colorado and Utah. But I guess you knew all this prior to your column because, hey, you watched so many movies about American Indians right? I'm sure you even thought that the costumes OutKast wore for their performance were what "real" American Indians wear today. The Navajo have a completely different style of traditional dress; not all tribes are American Indians from the plains region. I would think that as a student attending a school in the Southwest, which is abundant with a variety of tribes, you would have more knowledge than just that of movies and television shows. It amazes me how quickly you brushed off the issue of racial stereotyping by using the excuse that other movies have done the same. Why do you think American Indians were so angry when this incident happened yet again, in this day and age? Should we as American Indians excuse this type of racial stereotyping because every movie or television show does it? "Changing the channel" will not solve this problem, and I can't change the channel every time racial stereotyping of American Indians occurs, or else I'd never be able to watch television again. CBS is a major broadcasting agency with millions of viewers who believe that what they see on television is fact, just as I am sure you have done. So simply changing the channel will not suffice for American Indians, especially for me. Next time, think before you write.

Felicia Johnson
psychology junior

Libyan disarmament a matter of convenience

In his editorial about Libya, Mr. Okin shows the political ignorance and naivete that usually characterizes supporters of President Bush's foreign policy.

Had Mr. Okin researched Libya's recent history properly, he would have known that Gadhafi was extremely eager to re-establish relations with the U.S. and the international community since the early 90s. The reason is simply that international sanctions quickly lowered Libyans' standard of living (relatively high up till then), fomenting opposition to his rule. Until recently, he succeeded in normalizing relations with most of the members of the European community, but not the U.S. and the U.N.

Than came Iraq. Gadhafi realized that President Bush was desperate to find a new way to spin the Iraq war, after pre-war lies about WMDs and al-Qaida links were exposed and post-war Iraq revealed itself to be an unstable, expensive quagmire. So he offered a bait Bush could not refuse: "Dismantle" Libya's "WMD program" (which was extremely far away from actually producing any WMDs, and probably was kept as a bargaining chip), thus making it appear that "Iraq is working."

This way, Libya's regime gets to instantly get all the sanctions lifted and become a de facto U.S. ally, and any uncomfortable questions about its human rights record and possible past involvement in gruesome terrorist acts are quietly swept under the carpet.

Gadhafi is undoubtedly an able politician to be able to pull this off. But people like Okin need to be slightly more critical when hearing White House PR spin.

Giorgio Torrieri

physics graduate student

Populace can't resist trained, armed military

A letter from Phillip Buster printed in Tuesday's Wildcat asserted that the government should not eliminate a person's right to own a weapon for several reasons, one of which is the belief that an armed populace would be able to resist our well-armed, well-trained military if necessary.

I'm not going to get into an ideological throw-down here, but Mr. Buster's assertion that the German people would have risen up against Hitler and the Nazis had they retained their weapons is worthless. Pre-Gulf War II Iraq had an incredibly high percentage of homes with guns, and yet it still had a dictatorial regime, despised by many of the people who lived there. Our military is infinitely more well armed than we will ever be; we would stand nary a chance were there a military coup.

Lack of gun control got us into this mess, with the availability of firearms to unsavory elements, but to suggest that the situation would be better without some restrictions on the types and number of arms a person can own or import is ridiculous.

Regardless of that, I'd like to see this fallacious argument that an armed populace would be able to overthrow a modern, mechanized military state put to rest.

Richard Fry
creative writing junior