Wildcat doesn't report news, too sensationalist

Oh, man. Who's this Christopher Wuensch guy? Leave it to the Wildcat to bag on Wilbur again and again, year after year. It's a semi-annual tradition that dates all the way back to when the Wildcat stopped reporting the news and succumbed to the pressure of becoming a sensationalist rag, rife with opinion sure to stir the ever-swirling pot of controversy, and complete with trashy advertising sure to fund another great year of journalistic endeavor.

I mean, when you think of it, where would the UA community be without the Wildcat's poignant take on relevant issues such as, "Veteran spring break partygoers warn about dangers in Mexico"? If it hadn't been for the Wildcat, we would have never known the dangers that befall students who party in Mexico, let alone downtown Tucson. How about such steamy exposŽ in the editorial "Talking back: Journey into the mind of an ultraconservative." Here, seasoned, tax-paying citizen and columnist Brett Berry opens the doors of our mind by engaging us in this gripping tale of the evil conservatives and their take on taxes. The only interesting thing about that article was that it came from a student reporter who most likely could not spell 1040EZ, and whose father probably claimed him as a dependent on his tax form.

So here we are again, enduring another year of the Wildcat ad nauseum, all wondering what these reporters will do when they graduate, when up to this point, their primary contribution has been to ensure there is enough print to fill up the pages between Police Beat and the crossword puzzles, so the school isn't embarrassed by having to print a two-page newspaper.

In the end, I defend Chris Wuensch, and propose we adopt the mascot of Iola, of the Missouri Valley League, as mentioned in his article. While the athletics department may not approve of the name change, the Arizona Daily Gas Bags has a nice, fitting ring to it.

Grrrroooowwwwwl · and bear down!

Kirk Sibley
alumnus, former Wilbur the Wildcat

Bush, Sharon reject path of negotiation

I would like to respond to Aaron Okin's column, "A wider lens: A barrier for Mideast peace." I could not find one statement in this article that was actually true. Okin states, "Arafat and his officials have rejected the path of negotiations and measures that would indicate a serious commitment to a resolution." Mr. Okin, the term "negotiation" implies that both parties deal with the matter by both coming together through conference, discussion, and compromise. To say Yasser Arafat rejected the path of negotiations is not only misleading, it is absurd; he was not even offered the path of negotiations.

It is President Bush and Ariel Sharon who have rejected the path of negotiation by deciding that the Palestinian people are unworthy of negotiations. Ariel Sharon is a murderer and a racist. He is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinians and has on numerous occasions demonstrated his resentment toward Palestinian and Arab people. For President Bush to decide what is best for the Palestinian people based on "insight" from Sharon would be no different than if he were to decide what is best for the Israeli people based on "insight" from Hamas. Furthermore, it is just another example of President Bush's lack of concern for Arab and Muslim lives.

Okin goes on to say that Bush's endorsement "shows effective leadership does not always follow public opinion." This is almost laughable. Bush's endorsement shows the exact opposite. It shows that he is continuing a policy of catering to Israeli lobby groups to get Jewish votes, even if it means supporting a country that is carrying out gross injustices and human rights violations against Arab people.

Armand Navabi
computer science senior

Flags in classrooms won't improve America

In regard to Tyler Mott's wacky plan to slab a flag upon every wall in school: I suppose I don't have a problem with it, even though it may be viewed as some sort of propaganda. The hypocrisy is that the flag is supposed to remind us that this country is about "free speech." But at the same time, the person making this campaign and this argument is saying, "It's not like people need to vote on whether flags should be in the classroom," and saying that all who oppose him are "unpatriotic."

But I figure this letter is something he wants, since he wants a forum, right? Some liberal will think, "Look! He's Republican! I must disagree with him!" because you know that's what liberals do these days. So I guess because I think everyone should have civil liberties, I should oppose this flag thing. He seems to believe the only way we can support this country is to put up a flag. It's kind of like saying that because I have a cross in my living room, I am a good Christian. But really, I could go either way on the issue, because high school was pretty damn cool and they had flags in all their classrooms.

All kidding aside, patriotism isn't about showing your flags and spirit. You can talk all you want, but that doesn't mean you are going to do something about it. If you care, you should go out there and change the country. You can put up all the flags you want, but that isn't going to make this country any better.

So in conclusion, I should go move to Cuba, because Mr. Mott just called me "unpatriotic."

Brian Brazier
political science sophomore