Basketball, violence shouldn't be compared

In yesterday's paper, sports editor Justin St. Germain compared Andre Iguodala's shot selection to a Palestinian throwing bricks. How dare he compare a mere basketball game to a struggle for human survival? His political stands on this matter are irrelevant, for it is outrageous to compare such distant and remotely unrelated events. A Palestinian teenager is throwing "bricks" at an opposing army's tanks and military. I highly doubt he takes pleasure in such an action, but it is his only weapon in that war. He is certainly not trying out for the NBA or anything close to that.

In the grand scheme of things, I hope people realize that a war is highly supreme in its ethical and humane significance when compared to Andre Iguodala's shot selection. Placing the two in a sentence is a greater tragedy than the Palestinian-Israeli conflict itself.

Hopefully senior Wildcat editors will pay attention to such ridiculous comments and stop them from being published.

Zeid Bataineh
pre-business sophomore

Federal funding wasted on students' Pell Grants

The recent letter by Wendy Watters lamenting the lack of increased spending on Pell Grants is quite untimely. A few weeks ago, the Department of Labor released a report enumerating the top-10 jobs for the future in terms of growth and opportunity. Only three categories listed (teachers, nurses and general management) would arguably require any post-middle school education. The remaining categories (i.e. janitor, retail, customer service) require very little education beyond rudimentary reading and math. Thus, from a logical standpoint, any Pell Grant funding is wasteful spending given that no return can be had from investing in a student to earn a B.A. just to turn around and spend his or her workday asking, "Paper or plastic?" Besides, with a global economy devoid of borders, why spend money educating workers when we can import already educated people?

Wyman Darrell Nedd
UA alumnus

Church and state not so separate after all

With the case recently heard in the Supreme Court, I was in no way surprised to see that people wanted to put their 2 cents in the Wildcat. This is fine, but I am tired of people only giving one side, and not the whole truth. Jim Logan was on the right path in Monday's Wildcat when he said that the controversial section of the Pledge of Allegiance was added in 1954 as a response to Communist Russia, and to promote national unity within the United States. Where Mr. Logan is confused is that America's foundation was in fact based off of Judeo-Christian ideology with the intent of keeping religion an important part of its citizens' lives. Many of America's laws were derived from the Ten Commandments, and have stayed intact until today. The interpretation of the First Amendment is a key issue in this argument. The amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." To me, this means that the government cannot make any laws favoring one religion over another, or denying anyone religious freedom. Nowhere does it say that the government cannot have any ties with any form of religion at all. America today has gone from a society with freedom of religion to a society that has freedom from religion. The term "God" does not establish, or promote, any single religion, but in fact encompasses them all. Whether you pray to a Christian god, a Jewish god, a Muslim god or any other type of deity, the term "God" is universally satisfying. And if you are an atheist who does not believe in God, then simply do not say the words while reciting the pledge. Your lack of divine beliefs should not infringe on other people's beliefs that America is united "under God." Finally, I would just like to say that I personally do not think that America is united "under God," so when I recite the pledge, I simply leave that part out.

Mike Rosenthal
Judaic studies senior

OPEC to blame for cost increase of U.S. gasoline

In regard to Branden Lombardi's letter to the editor, "Bush not to blame for rising fuel prices": Mr. Lombardi states, "Money-hungry petroleum companies · have monopolized the industry and truly set gas prices where they currently sit." Well, if that is the case, Daily Wildcat readers, then the oil companies are incompetent beyond belief at controlling what Mr. Lombardi is paying at the pump, because U.S. gas prices are the lowest in the world. If one wants to look at the power and conspiracy of oil companies, one would have to look elsewhere ÷ say, at their influence in making invasions of oil-rich countries occur, or perhaps the squelching of alternative energy technology (like solar energy, Tucsonans!).

If one ponders why gas prices are marching higher and higher, the answers are these: The world's oil reserves are slowly (but surely) running out, thus causing greater production costs; fewer "new" oil fields are being discovered; and China, most likely the world's biggest economy a short time from now, has changed from being an oil exporter to an oil importer, with its huge economic growth slowly building a middle class that can buy autos.

People in the United States can clearly thank the large increase in Russian oil production since the fall of the USSR for not having gas prices at $4 per gallon or higher this summer. Without Russia, and to a lesser extent a few other non-OPEC oil exporters, OPEC ÷ and not oil companies like BP and Exxon ÷ would have pretty much total control over world oil prices, and drilling in smaller "fields" like ANWR in Alaska will do very, very little to change this.

So next time you're riding in your flag-decaled Humvee ÷ or riding your bicycle to buy something made from petroleum products, like maybe a Frisbee ÷ stop and have a shot of vodka, toast the Russians and realize that all those dead ferns from the dinosaur era that are fueling our cars will soon be gone, gone, gone, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves. Dana Eyde
Disability Resource Center employee