Not all environmentalists share same motivations

In regards to "The real goal of environmentalists," by Tim Belshe in Thursday's paper: Although the column highlighted a common point of friction between environmentalists and land owners in an informative way, I object to its characterization of ranchers making a profit while maintaining their land as "something the environmentalists can't stand." In state land across the West, there are numerous endangered species that are protected by the Endangered Species Act. Although the decision to sue over the proposed revisions may not be the best way to reach an effective compromise, the concerns of the environmentalists are clearly more than simple jealousy. Mr. Belshe undermines his point by effectively characterizing all environmentalists as having their priorities mixed up. Funny enough - on the front page was a complete rebuttal of your characterization of environmentalists in the article "UA prof wants less grass, more birds" about Michael Rosenzweig and his idea of reconciliation ecology. I suggest you read professor Rosenzweig's book to see the tired old environmentalists versus progress idea refuted in favor of ways that we can preserve biodiversity and increase the profitability of our natural lands.

Matt Swanson
philosophy senior

U.S. has strong history of isolationism, not war

I am troubled by the lack of historical perspective demonstrated in the column by Sara Warzecka entitled, "Who's calling the shots?" She begins the column by saying, "For more than 200 years, the United States has stuck its nose in other countries' business. We've sent off young army recruits into foreign lands, whether we were asked to be there or not. In many cases, the presence of U.S. troops has only made the situation worse ..." She provides nothing specific to support this broad claim.

Warzecka's claim ignores the 120 years of American history in which Americans were nearly isolationists. More importantly, the claim ignores the sacrifice and accomplishments of nearly 500,000 men who died defending America and the rest of the world against the naked aggression of the Axis (which, by the way, attacked us first) during World War II. During World War II, American soldiers came to the Allies' rescue and turned the tide of the war, saving millions of civilian lives that would have been taken by Hitler's brutal regime. The claim discounts the memory of the 100,000 American men who died in World War I after America entered the war in response to attacks by German submarines. It ignores the accomplishments of many thousands who contributed to the decline of an oppressive form of government that was poised to sweep the globe through a series of communist revolutions. Had these sacrifices not been made, Ms. Warzecka wouldn't even have the freedom to write columns that are critical of our leaders; let us never forget these sacrifices.

I suspect that what Ms. Warzecka is actually troubled by is the shift in American policy during the last two decades toward a more aggressive role as a world police officer. This shift occurred under the leadership of President Clinton (Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia) and the Bushes (Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq). However, if Ms. Warzecka would like to take issue with this recent policy shift, she should do so directly and do so without a broad and groundless attack on the sacrifices, spirit and entire history of our country.

Daniel Hickman
electrical and computer engineering graduate student

New foliage good move, instead of dead grass

When the choice is between bare-looking, water-hogging and often dead grass, and native plants that not only attract animals but are also far easier to maintain, I think the answer is obvious. Hats off to professor Rosenzweig for suggesting this step in the right direction.

While we're on the subject, yet another way to make the UA more environmentally friendly and save money in the long run would be to install photovoltaics on the flat, sun-baked rooftops that predominate on campus.

Ben Kalafut
optical sciences graduate student

Diversity won't prepare students for real world

Alex Dong's impassioned defense of diversity's role in education contained a series of fallacies. First and foremost, Mr. Dong seems to think that "education" is some sort of testing ground for sharing ideas, like a cultural show-and-tell. Unfortunately, if we allow our education system to become no more than a diversity quota system, we risk losing out on producing intelligent minds capable of solving problems. For instance, think of a math class. According to Mr. Dong, it would be more important to have a "variety of perspectives" than to have the correct answer. But when you graduate and you are working on a cure for cancer, all those perspectives won't help a lick, and you will be wishing someone taught you how to get the right answer rather than teaching you about the religious practices of sub-Saharan Ghana.

Seth Frantzman
UA alumnus

Music majors study for love of art, not money

This letter is in response to the column written by Sara Warzecka concerning those pursuing careers in music and those who undermine them. I appreciate the fact that someone finally put into print how many people feel about the perpetual idiots who parade through such shows as "Joe Millionaire," "The Bachelorette" and, most relevantly for this letter's sake, "American Idol." As one of the "people majoring in music" who Ms. Warzecka apparently discovered on her incredibly daunting Internet search, I can definitely appreciate her initial comments about the lack of talent and self-respect that seems to recycle America's cultural ignorance. Unfortunately, Ms. Warzecka seems to have fallen into that very loop of ignorance later in her column, spouting her opinions on the lives of musicians.

It's incredibly sad that the point of her musician-bashing was how we as artists are not likely to have lucrative careers in whichever field we choose to study; in my case, voice. The second half of her column had absolutely nothing to do with the title of her piece, which initially caught my eye and made me think that someone was finally going to recognize that majoring in music is something legitimate and not just something people do on the weekends or when life is in the pits. As Ms. Warzecka noted, music is indeed a "do-it-yourself industry," with many people striking it out on their own to seek their fortunes, as it were. But for the vast majority of students who are in school at an accredited university studying the subject for a degree, money is not the first thing that comes to our minds. One could also say that teaching is not necessarily a lucrative career, financially speaking, but true musicians find a much better satisfaction from making the world that much more beautiful.

Now, I'm not sure if that makes us sound like a bunch of hippies to the layperson, but I know I'm doing what I'm doing because I love it, and I wouldn't have it any other way. It is too bad that Ms. Warzecka felt the need to rant about the ineptitudes of musicians and the paucity of moneymaking careers for us. Any job could potentially be seen in this light if you put it the right way. Being "culturally dysfunctional" is a choice, in my mind. Don't complain about the system you perpetuate.

Alberto Ranjel
vocal performance senior