Bush presidency not a historical highlight

After arduous years of practice, I thought I had finally grown accustomed to Shane Dale's reactionary and fact-deprived editorial scrawls in the Wildcat (not to mention his recent equally ill-informed writing about UA basketball). But Mr. Dale's piece in today's paper really takes the cake. He wrote: "Arguably, no presidential accomplishment in U.S. history was more important than Bush's reaction to the terrorist attacks."

Move over, FDR! Take a hike, Abe Lincoln! Sure, you guys may have preserved the union through times of depression and civil war, beating back fascism and slavery. But behold the Bush legacy: marginally increased airport security and a couple of somewhat successful wars against two of the poorest countries on Earth.

It's bad enough for the Wildcat to print a piece like this one by Mr. Dale. But I really wonder if the political science department shouldn't also take a hard look at itself. How can someone advance to senior standing in that department while possessing such an appalling lack of perspective and historical understanding?

Jesse Saba Kirchner
linguistics and East Asian studies senior

Land proposal good for schools, environment

The proposed state trust land legislation has received some attention from a segment of the conservation community that considers the proposal a bad deal for the environment. It is important to recognize that a number of conservation groups have continued to work on the proposal and believe that there is much there to support. The Arizona Nature Conservancy, Grand Canyon Trust, Trust for Public Lands, Sonoran Institute, Arizona League of Conservation Voters, Central Arizona Land Trust, Superstition Area Land Trust, Oracle Land Trust, Friend's of Flagstaff's Future, Arboretum at Flagstaff, McDowell Sonoran Land Trust and the Desert Foothills Land Trust are all in support. This is in addition to the Arizona Education Association, Arizona School Board Association, Arizona School Administrators, League of Cities and Towns and the County Supervisors Association.

Why do all these groups support the proposal?

Number one: It is good for our schools. About 80 percent of the value of the state trust lands directly benefits K-12 public education. The reforms will increase the value of the trust and consequently increase funding that goes directly to our schools.

Number two: It is good for conservation. Approximately 280,000 acres will be set aside and permanently protected upon the approval of the voters ÷ 280,000 acres of critical land identified by the conservation community.

A special planning and conservation designation is placed on approximately 400,000 acres, which can be set aside for open space upon the trust obtaining full value ÷ 400,000 acres of land identified by the conservation community.

Better urban land-use planning means more value for the trust and more natural open space for our cities and towns. This planning tool is absolutely essential given that our current tool to protect open space, the Arizona Preserve Initiative, is undergoing a legal challenge on constitutional grounds.

Additional trust land parcels can be set aside for open space conservation through land exchanges with governmental entities. In fact, because of past voter concern about land exchanges, this proposal limits land exchanges to exchanges that conserve the state trust lands as natural open space.

In short, state trust land reform is good for kids and the environment.

Andy Laurenzi
Sonoran Institute

Feminism intended to stop societal sexism

I find myself disturbed by the biased and misinformed views given in Susan Bonicillo's column entitled "Reviving Feminism." Though the title of her piece caught my eye, I found what she wrote rather troubling. I object to her calling events such as the Women's Leadership Conference "estrogen-driven" and saying that they have "feminist overtones."

As for her view on feminists ("unshaven, man-hating feminazi(s)") ÷ I find them disgusting. That is a mass media-enforced picture of feminists from the 1970s and 1980s. To continue to think of feminists in that manner just shows how she buys into the very mass media-reinforced stereotypes that she herself is supposedly against (as stated when she wrote "Women are still put in traditional roles due to an old-fashioned belief promulgated in the minds of the people and reinforced by mass media.")

Also, her opinion on feminism is based on an incorrect view of the purpose behind feminism. Feminism is a movement designed not to create equality between the men and women but to eliminate sexism in our society. As for the achievements of the feminist movement producing delusions as to the role of women in society, how did a movement designed to end sexism create these delusions? I don't think that advertisements relegating women's roles to service are a result of feminism, but proof that feminism is still necessary and not trivial.

Finally, concerning Ms. Bonicillo's statement that the United States claims moral superiority when concerning the rights and views of women, we have a long way to go before we could even hope to claim that "moral superiority." But many countries, including the very countries she stated, have appalling records when concerning both the rights and views of women. To assume having a female as a president shows that they have superior views towards women is to make an incorrect assumption. I feel that Ms. Bonicillo would benefit greatly in her writing if she researched the topics she chooses to write about beforehand.

Eric Stalker
history freshman