Arizona Daily Wildcat Online
sections
Front Page
News
Sports
· Basketball
Opinions
· Columnists
Live Culture
GoWild
Police Beat
Datebook
Comics
Crossword
Photo Spreads
Special Sections
Classifieds
The Wildcat
Letter to the Editor
Wildcat staff
Search
Archives
Job Openings
Advertising Info
Student Media
Arizona Student Media info
UATV - student TV
KAMP - student radio
The Desert Yearbook
Daily Wildcat staff alumni

News
Mailbag


Arizona Daily Wildcat
Tuesday, May 4, 2004
Print this

More Eastern courses needed in UA gen eds

I think that it is rather unfortunate that the number of non-Western ¸ particularly Eastern courses ¸ in the general education program are so few and far between. Considering that UA students are required to take quite a number of these tier one courses, it is only fair that such courses are more balanced between different cultures and groups giving students more options and exposure to different ideas.

In the Traditions and Cultures section, TRAD 102 and 103 are exclusively Western with TRAD 104 also containing courses almost exclusively based in Western traditions. The TRAD 104 Comparative Religions class is not "comparative" at all, nor is it representative of world religions, since the focus is only on the three Semitic religions: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. For some reason, this comparative class forgets to include Hinduism and Buddhism, the third and fourth largest religions in the world.

TRAD 101 is considered to be "non-Western," but it also contains many Western courses. I would appreciate it if someone from the department could explain how "The French-Speaking World" and "Colonial Latin America" are "non-Western" courses.

It is also quite apparent that the bulk of the INDV section is also Western.

We have all heard the stereotype that "Americans don't know there is a world outside of America." Let us help to remove this stereotype by having the university offer more Eastern courses to expose more Americans to different parts of our world.

Eric Austin
engineering physics freshman


UA campus not entirely pro-choice or pro-life

While it is certainly true that the entire campus is not pro-choice, I encourage others to consider the idea that it is not entirely pro-life, either. What the front-page article April 26 was meant to show is that Arizona is not 100 percent conservative. I'm sure people like Karen Schwerin would prefer such a condition, but is not a diverse campus preferable? You may also wish to consider whether claiming that the UA has pro-choice students is truly "bad for the university."

As for Mary Byram's letter, it is also true that legal abortion is saving the lives of many women. In countries where abortion is illegal, death rates of women having abortions are approximately 700 percent higher (one in 100,000 vs. 700 in 100,000) than the rates in nations where abortion is legal, such as the United States.

What many pro-life activists fail to consider is that actual abortion rates only go down slightly if the practice is made illegal. What abolition does is increase the number of grotesque, back-alley, "coat hanger" abortions. So, I ask Mary Byram: Isn't it "backwards" for pro-life activists to support practices that actually increase mortality rates of mothers for an unequal decrease in mortality rates of children? Isn't it also "backwards" for pro-life activists to support practices that are much more cruel and grotesque?

I am one to believe that a woman's body is her own. I am not going to impose my misleading viewpoints of morality on anyone but myself. I see pro-life activists supporting a move toward the abolition of abortion, but I don't see them lining up to adopt those children who are left to fend for themselves as orphans, and I don't see them even offering an opinion on the practice of illegal abortions and the mortality rates associated with them.

I suggest you consider all factors before formulating an opinion on whether or not legal abortion is truly wrong. I don't encourage abortion, but it's a much better solution than the alternatives.

Michael Werth
astrophysics freshman


Term misinterpreted by pro-lifers

So the abortion debate is starting a little later this semester. I have so far kept quiet in this issue, but I felt very strongly that Mary Byram's letter on Friday needed a response. She has totally misunderstood what "pro-choice" actually means. It does not mean "abortion or nothing." It simply means that women have the right to choose to have an abortion. This movement does not support only women who terminate their pregnancies; it actually supports all women by offering more us more choices.

The statistic that Mary quotes is incorrect and is typical of the "anti-choice" rhetoric that includes the false belief that abortion increases the risk of developing breast cancer.

If Ms. Byram wants "change," then isn't that synonymous with progress? If so, returning to the pre-Roe v. Wade days of back street abortions and women dying quite horrific deaths due to a safe procedure being once again rendered unsafe is hardly progress.

This issue is always going to remain highly contentious, and the argument will probably never end. In the meantime, the pro-life lobby needs to respect the pro-choice lobby and vice versa. I am pro-choice ¸ I believe in a woman's right to choose, just as I believe that you also have the right to choose to disagree with me.

Joanne Kennedy
anthropology sophomore


Capitalism has never been ╬beneficial' to U.S.

Sara Warzecka said, "The fat cats at the top of health care corporations ... line their pockets." And she is right. Never in American history has capitalism been beneficial. The Rockefeller Foundation, funded using capital begotten by trodding on the downtrodden proletariat, has only donated billions of dollars to medical research and started an entire university for medical research. Then there were Johns Hopkins and George Peabody, two capitalistic conspirators, who only funded two of the most respected research institutes in the world.

All together, these three men only managed to fund three separate institutes that have contributed to the betterment of billions of people around the world. If only Ms. Warzecka had been around then to stop these dastardly men from their nefarious scheming.

Dan Norwood
computer science junior


Canadian health care far inferior to America's

Looking beyond the fantasy of "free" health care to the reality of socialized medicine in Canada and elsewhere, it's clear that a Canadian-style form of socialized "health insurance" isn't right for the United States, or probably Canada, for that matter.

Canadians pay 20 cents of every dollar they earn to pay for their nationalized health care system, and receive a product vastly inferior to that which the over 85 percent of Americans who have private insurance receive. They have to suffer on waiting lists, and are denied coverage for many procedures American insurers routinely pay for, such as epidural anesthesia or the MRIs for sports injuries, which is often necessary to ensure that an injury doesn't become life-long. Canadians cross the border for MRIs, for elective heart diagnostics and for other procedures they are either denied or don't have the equipment for due to the way their system discourages capital improvements.

Who is stopping the implementation of such a system in the United States? Not the "fat cats," who Warzecka thinks somehow control the government, but ordinary citizens like myself who understand that most of the flaws attributed to private health care are the result of bad legislation.

If the proponents of socialized health "insurance" succeed, they will not only have enacted an unconstitutional program ¸ they'll have been guilty of drastically lowering the standard of living of those working Americans who are insured. They're putting their ideology before our welfare.

Another solution is possible, but due to the moral panic over that uninsured 15 percent and the Candyland appeal of socialized

insurance to left-wing ideologues and the ignorant, Democrats and Republicans aren't talking about it.

Let's throw out that bad legislation and fix private healthcare so we don't have to suffer through a socialized system and the long, difficult process of re-privatization.

Bennett Kalafut
optical sciences graduate student


Jews, Arabs will one day exist together peacefully

"When people criticize Zionists ¸ they mean Jews ¸ you are talking anti-Semitism." These are the words Dr. Martin Luther King used to respond to a clearly hostile question about his stand on Zionism at a Harvard lecture shortly before his assassination.

One day, there will be peace between the many tribes of Arab and Jewish peoples. Let this peace begin with a compassionate use of language. Dehumanizing Israel is not the answer.

Michael Schwartz
UA alumnus


Students should promote legalized marijuana use

The Tucson chapter of NORML recently held a march in favor of the legalization of marijuana. Even though we got a lot of young people honking their horns and an enthusiastic round of applause as we passed by Frog & Firkin, the march itself maybe had, at one point, 30 people, most of whom were not students. I was very disappointed.

It's like they'll cheer us on even as they're smoking a joint in the car they're passing us by in, but they don't want to do the hard work of marches, protest, civil disobedience, handing out fliers, etc. There's no passion in students today. Consumerism seems to have siphoned off whatever passion they might have had.

Now there's been a lot of talk about the pro-choice movement and freedom over one's body in recent letters to the editor, and I must say that I've been impressed with the level of intellectual discourse, but some of these philosophically attuned students don't seem to realize that our struggle is their struggle. If we let the government tell us we can't smoke a joint in the privacy of our own home, then is it any surprise that Roe v. Wade is under attack?

The Wildcat seems to be focusing most of its attention on medical marijuana. The medical marijuana strategy is not going to work. The Supreme Court will simply slam this latest attempt down, unanimously, like they first one back in 2001.

What we need to do is promote regulated legalization. This way, they won't be able to say, "They're just using the medicinal argument as a way to get it legalized altogether." I think we can win the argument for regulated legalization on the same grounds Roe v. Wade stands on: freedom over one's own body.

John Feier
accounting senior


Alum's death reminder of college friendships, fun

I am writing on behalf of Paul Chait, our dear friend who was killed April 27 in Phoenix. Chait was a true Wildcat who seized the opportunities that the UA presented. Whether a night at Dirtbag's or a day spent watching the Cats, Chait understood better than us all that college is best when fully engaged.

While many current students never knew Chait, they hopefully know what it means to be a friend. College is about friendship and having fun. It is about collecting the memories from a life well spent. It should not take the death of a friend to remind us of this.

Ten years ago, we graduated from the UA, and the time spent there is the entry point for so many memories. In memory of our friend, do not forget what college is all about. Look around you and realize that these are friends for life. Bear down, Mijno!

Daniel Hare
UA alumnus


Remember all soldiers as you remember Tillman

All of the soldiers fighting for America are equal. Why does a football player get so much more attention when he dies? I agree that Pat Tillman is a hero for quitting his job to fight in Afghanistan, and then dying for our country. However, why is he getting so much more attention than the other hundreds of soldiers who have died who gave up just as much as Pat Tillman?

Thousands of soldiers were called up to go to Iraq and Afghanistan; each one of them had to sacrifice something to go over there, and each is equally an American and equally deserving of our support.

When any other soldier dies in Iraq or Afghanistan, why do we not focus equally as much on them as on Pat Tillman? His life is not worth more than any other American's life just because he played in the NFL and gave up millions of dollars to go fight. We should honor the life of each fallen soldier like Pat Tillman has been honored.

Soldiers are dying each week; don't make their families feel that their loved ones' lives are not worth as much as Pat Tillman's life. Each soldier is equally a hero and each deserves the same amount of respect and honor when he or she fights for our country. This is especially true when they fight and die.

Matt Ehler
psychology senior



Write a Letter to the Editor
articles
Mailbag
divider
Connecting The Dots: Finally, UA is getting some relief
divider
Talking Back: Truth is not political manipulation
divider
Housing Guide
University of Arizona Visitor's Guide
Restaurant and Bar guide
Search for:
advanced search Archives
CAMPUS NEWS | SPORTS | OPINIONS
CLASSIFIEDS | ARCHIVES | CONTACT US | SEARCH


Webmaster - webmaster@wildcat.arizona.edu
© Copyright 2003 - The Arizona Daily Wildcat - Arizona Student Media