Immorality evident from Wildcat's front page
I am utterly disgusted and outraged by this paper's display of public sexuality on the front page of Monday's Wildcat! There should be some borderline when it comes to how far this school is going to let the students promote sexuality and drunkenness. It's bad enough to hear about kids going to Mexico so they can get in trouble and drunk since they can't destroy themselves legally here in the States. I thought seeing the terrible porn ads inside the paper was the worst it could get (whereas porn is not allowed to be seen on the computers in the library ... double standard, don't you think?). But, to see on display two women in a position as if they are doing something horrifically provocative and having two other boys outside of them looked like a giant orgy to me! And for you students who are going to tell me to lighten up, gain some maturity and some class; I'm sure your bosses in the business world won't be too happy if they see you doing that while you are representing their company. I felt like looking at the picture left nothing to the imagination. If this is supposed to be an example of our student class, then I have never been more embarrassed or ashamed of being a part of the UA. Considering its annual cross-dressing displays, not to mention fraternity parties and half-naked women walking around, this school should change its name to the University of Sexual Expression and Drunkenness. Have our papers and campuses lost all morality and modesty? I think that question has already been answered. I'm glad Bush isn't coming specifically for the reason that this school's standards are beginning to be an embarrassment to our country. Too bad he won't be here to teach those students a few good manners. By the way, I doubt there would be anything on the front page about students spending their spring break having a good time with Mickey or doing a ministry project for their church. I guess moral and physical destruction are more appealing!
Annie Feld
history junior
You must be responsible for own healthy eating
This is in response to Susan Bonicillo's column, "Fatties of the world, unite." In her article, she calls legislators and executive branch members the "biggest obstacle to a healthier nation" by enacting the Cheeseburger bill, which, in effect, limits liability for fast-food companies that feed customers fat-laden food.
Usually, I would agree with such a statement due to the fact that political bodies (Congress) tend to legislate based on personal agendas (thirst for re-election, lobby support, etc.) Her article neglects a fundamental fact of society: Everybody has freedom to make choices, and they must take responsibility for those choices.
Everybody is aware (I hope by now, at least) that fast food is generally unhealthy. From youth, our parents teach us to limit chocolates, sweets, candy, etc. Why is fast food any different? Instead of suing the cheesecake factory for $10 million, why doesn't society realize that the choices we make reflect who we are as people? If someone eats too much fast food, yes, he will probably become overweight. But this is no different than any other non-healthy food item we encounter every day.
I am appalled when Ms. Bonicillo quotes doctors like John Hoebel, who parallels fast-food cravings to harsh addictions such as nicotine and heroin. Nicotine and heroin! What is this world coming to? It is time to take responsibility for our own actions and stop blaming Big Macs for our own lack of willpower.
Jacob Levy
pre-business sophomore
Zionism inherently just 'racist' colonialism
Jeremy Slavin seeks to justify the horrors of Zionism through his literal interpretation of the Bible. This is nonsense. I can apply the same lack of logic to the Christian Old Testament and prove that God intends for me to have concubines in addition to my wives (II Samuel 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chronicles 11:21). In fact, a literal interpretation of the Bible also states that if I die before having kids, then my brother has to marry my wife, and will be fined if he refuses (Genesis 38:6-10; Deuteronomy 25:5-10).
Zionism at heart is nothing more than another racist justification of colonialism. Its only application is as a rationale for Jewish fundamentalists to continue stealing land. Those who follow Zionism as the word of God have hypocrisy as the foundation of their beliefs. No sane person would believe that it's God's desire for children to be barred from school, for entire communities to be put under 24-hour curfews for weeks at a time, for ambulances to be turned away at roadblocks before they can reach the injured or for the needless destruction of homes in the name of self defense.
The current intifada has killed around 700 Israelis. Compare that to the 2,600 dead Palestinians and the true meaning of "self defense" becomes clear. Is this the Zionism Slavin cherishes? Is this what Jews believe in? I think not. The Jews I've known have been much better people than that. As long as Israel continues to be a Zionist aggressor, it will not represent the Jewish people as I know them, but rather serve to tarnish their image and incite anti-Semitism around the globe.
Kris Brown
UA alumnus
Bible does support idea of Manifest Destiny
In Robert Balla's letter to the Wildcat yesterday, he made several outlandish and false claims regarding religion and the conflict in Israel. He claims that "the Bible should not be compared to Manifest Destiny." Well, in the book of Exodus, God says, "I will bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out." And in Surah 9:5, the Quran says, "Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them." These statements come from the holy books of the world's main monotheistic faiths, and yet they seem to encourage violence and genocide. So it is totally false to claim that the Bible and Quran are peaceful books. If Mr. Balla had ever bothered to read either book rather than just attending workshops where the prettiest picture is painted, he would realize that religion is not inherently peaceful; in fact, it is inherently intolerant.
Mr. Balla goes on to claim that the present-day Palestinians "lived in the Holy Land long before Abraham was born." Abraham was born around 2000 B.C. The reality is that there has been no continuous settlement in Israel from that time forward. Instead, the land has changed hands more then 100 times and been invaded by more then a dozen migrations of people. The "I lived here first" claim is just a foolish powder to fuel the fires of conflict and hate that exist in Israel, and anyone who truly desires peace should put these age-old claims behind them and move on.
Seth Frantzman
UA alumnus