Not all money spent at Mt. Graham from tuition

A March 10 letter, "Tuition hike needed for Mt. Graham exploits," stated that tuition must be increased to fund UA telescope projects. This is incorrect. NO tuition revenue has been used to fund these projects; money has come from other sources. General university funds are most certainly not the source of "32 million spent so far" on Mount Graham telescopes, as Robin Silver stated. National and international partners in telescope projects often contribute 50 to 75 percent of the cost; in some cases, 100 percent. Since July 2000, the UA astronomy department and Steward Observatory have brought in more than $68 million in research, of which $15.9 million has been contributed to the university for use throughout the university. Astronomy is not only an outstanding academic and research asset of the UA and Arizona, but a financial plus as well.

Janet Bingham
vice president of University Advancement

Record industry in the right to sue students

In yesterday's story, "UA subpoenaed by recording industry," freshman Brett Bohannon said that it is unfair for the recording industry to sue students because the programs used to download - i.e., steal - music are "available" to students, and therefore the distributors of those programs should be sued instead.

That makes about as much sense as saying that because Home Depot sells products that can be used to break into people's houses, Home Depot should be prosecuted for burglary, and not the burglars themselves.

Kevin Pollak
UA alumnus

Front page photograph 'detrimental to campus'

Bravo to Annie Feld for pointing out what has been on many a mind here on campus! The Daily Wildcat is becoming more and more about stereotypes and clichŽs. The photo on the cover of the Wildcat Monday was incredibly detrimental to the campus, the students and most of all the community.

If I wanted to see a couple of alleged whores on the cover of a campuswide publication, I would read Campus Magazine - although it's the only magazine dedicated to campus life and reminds me of nothing but an MTV show. MTV ... that reminds me - why is it the Wildcat is so determined to have no moral character when it serves its own lurid purpose?

I mean, the staff must have known the photo of the scantily clad, drunken adolescents was going to offend a lot of people. It's obvious that sexual promiscuity and veiled societal shortcomings are what's on the menu of our campus newspaper's "what to do" list.

Don't get me wrong; I love women, especially naked ones. Yet I cannot help but cringe at the lack of responsibility that is shown every day on this campus.

Ask yourselves, "At what price regress?" Is this school about the promotion of sex and "academic cleansing," or is this institution about the promotion of healthy societal progress and personal growth?

Personally, I am sick of seeing the sex ads about personal maid service and the continual personification of the Wildcat's idea of the perfect student - nice hair, nice smile and great tits! Make a change for the better, Wildcat, before it's too late.

Malik Hawkins
sociology senior

Wildcat needs to report both sides of the story

Every day I read the Wildcat, and every day I become a little more ill. How is it that the Wildcat on a regular basis represents only one side of an argument? That one side is always the left. Take the March 9 columns, for example - two different columns, both of which attack Republicans and President Bush. Is this responsible journalism? Is it not the job of a journalist to present the facts of both sides and let the reader make his or her own informed decision?

The Wildcat will always be a second-rate paper as long as it caters to the left solely. I am not saying it should be the other way around, but should at least make an effort to present both sides of the argument.

Rob Lofgren
education junior

Bush campaign not bolstered by Sept. 11

In the March 9 column, "Just another exploitation of Sept. 11," Brett Berry shows his writing is not based at all on fact, but only of his emotional hatred for Bush.

This is clearly evident when he admits that on Sept. 11, he stated to his mother, "This is the best thing that could have happened for Bush." This statement truly shows how little someone like Berry cares about the lives of thousands in comparison to his disgust for Bush.

Anyone who immediately thought of partisan politics on that sad day should be ashamed. Berry goes on to misstate that "many families" are opposed to the Bush ads showing images of Sept. 11.

The truth is, the group spearheading this assault is called "September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows," which, the group admits, has only a few dozen members and represents relatives of no more than 1 percent of the Sept. 11 victims.

This is the same group that was created to oppose all actions not only against Iraq, but dismantling even the Taliban. The group's leaders traveled to Afghanistan and also to Iraq just prior to war to protest "violent responses to terrorism."

For Mr. Berry to imply that this group represents "many" of the families who lost loved ones is not only bad reporting, but just plain deceitful.

For Mr. Berry to state that Bush has nothing to run on but Sept. 11 is not only absurd, but downright laughable. The economy is far from poor, unemployment is by all standards average at 5.6 percent and the Gross Domestic Product has increased by 8 percent in the last two quarters.

Mortgage rates are the lowest in 25 years. And most importantly, the United States is safe! Joe Roen
civil engineering junior