Letter on Ch‡vez full of opinion, short on facts

In his letter to the Wildcat on Tuesday, Mike Sousa calls the Student Objectivist Society and the College Republicans "liars" and "double-speaky." Mr. Sousa's letter is full of emotion but short on fact. First, the use of vague terms like "double-speaky" lends no credence to Mr. Sousa's attack. He fails to specify what he means by "double-speaky," instead assuming readers will understand a negative connotation without any clear explanation. Second, Mr. Sousa chooses to ignore a number of facts, preferring instead to call names. It is documented that Ch‡vez and his followers participated in and threatened violent action against business owners and non-union farm workers. Mr. Sousa denies this, but then goes on to imply that if Ch‡vez and his followers were involved in violence (wink wink), then such action was justified. Mr. Sousa then accuses Ch‡vez detractors of being pro-violence: Why else would the SOS support U.S. action against Iraq? Using this reasoning, Mr. Sousa implies the SOS has no right to denounce Ch‡vez's use of force ÷ not that Ch‡vez condoned or initiated the use of force against anyone (wink wink). Those opposing Ch‡vez's ideology would argue there is a clear difference between Ch‡vez's violent scare tactics against free people and U.S. military action against a belligerent country (i.e., Iraq) with a repressive dictatorial regime and a capacity to threaten free countries. Third, Mr. Sousa asserts that because only six persons were present to protest the renaming of the Economics building, versus the hundreds there to celebrate it, the six must be wrong. Right and wrong are not determined by the majority. Was Rosa Parks wrong on Dec. 1, 1955, when she refused to give up her bus seat for a white man? She was one standing against the majority of millions ÷ but she was right.

Andrew McCarthy
geosciences graduate student

'Bandwagon fans' want Yankees to lose series

I want to see a Bo Sox and Cubbies World Series. What's wrong with that? I will admit that I am in no way a Boston or Chicago fan, but one thing is for sure: I hate the Yankees. Nothing in baseball bugs me more than that arrogant smile on Derek Jeter's face or Don Zimmer always causing some kind of scene.

So as I sat and read Christopher Wuensch's column, "Bandwagon Cubs, Sox fans should take a seat," I felt I had to stand up for those frontrunners. We don't need to be from Boston or Chicago or know about the curses of the Bambino or the billy goat. All we need is to come together around one idea: The Yankees suck! Here's to another exciting post-season · with anyone but the Yankees as world champs.

Go Bo Sox and Cubbies!

Rick Humiston
public administration sophomore

Recent 'hate rhetoric' claims are unfounded

Jonna Lopez writes in her Tuesday letter that she is gravely concerned about the "hate rhetoric" displayed on a Christian evangelist website. She claims that Cross Ministries is "using religion to disguise hate speech." "Hate" is a very strong word, and in the context of Ms. Lopez's letter, it is a gross overstatement. Hate is an evil thing. It manifests itself in horrible ways; people are beaten and killed because of hate. It is not merely disagreement. I am disagreeing with Ms. Lopez, but I don't hate or even dislike her. She says the Pride Alliance decided that Mr. Wilkins (of Cross Ministries) is not welcome at the UA. Since when is someone not welcome at a public university because of his beliefs? As far as I can see, Cross Ministries has not overstepped its First Amendment rights. They are professing that it is wrong to be homosexual, and whether they are right or wrong, they are entitled to that opinion. They are not entitled to harm anyone, but I don't think Mr. Wilkins and his colleagues are guilty of any violence. I'm not defending their beliefs, only their right to express those beliefs peacefully. The UA is a community of adults, so why is the Pride Alliance trying to shield gays from people's opinions like a parent turning off an R-rated movie in front of the kids? What if a pro-life group holds a demonstration telling women not to have abortions? Is that group using "hate rhetoric?" Is that group "not welcome on this campus" either? Should they be censored because they might make women feel uncomfortable? People should feel safe on campus, but that doesn't mean they should be free from criticism. Ms. Lopez is entitled to her opinion as well, but the Pride Alliance doesn't have the right to censor people that it disagrees with by labeling their opinions as hatred. Coming Out Week is about feeling comfortable about your lifestyle, and anyone who is comfortable with his lifestyle should be willing to accept criticisms, both rational and irrational. Ms. Lopez claims that Cross Ministries' efforts are an insult to the gay community, but it seems to me more insulting to insinuate that gays are fragile and childlike by giving them special protection from the opinions of others. We all have the "right to exist as individuals," but no one has the right to live "without interference from anyone," as long as interference only means voiced opposition. I have to listen to vegetarians telling me that I'm a bad person because I eat animals, but I don't accuse PETA of using hate rhetoric. The UA isn't an elementary school, so stop playing the overprotective parent and let homosexuals, and all others for that matter, accept that there are people who don't like the way they live.

Robert Crandall
physics freshman

Cannot imply a standard 'homosexual lifestyle'

Elizabeth Thompson's story on the speaking engagement by Tim Wilkins of Cross Ministry and the protest organized against it did a decent job of marshaling different viewpoints. But the sense of objectivity achieved by quoting so many individuals was severely undermined by the sentence, early in the piece, that reads, "Cross Ministry is a religious organization that disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle." Good journalism requires that this statement be qualified in some way, most likely by rewriting it to read, "Cross Ministry is a religious organization that disagrees with what it terms the homosexual lifestyle." Otherwise, the story seems to take it for granted that there is a "homosexual lifestyle" that one can agree or disagree with, a point with which a great many members of our community would strongly dispute.

Charlie Bertsch
assistant professor of English

Possible to be both gay and Christian

On Tuesday night, the Baptist Collegiate Ministries sponsored an "ex-gay" speaker, Mr. Tim Wilkins, to host a discussion The gay community and Christian community are again butting heads. So, where does that leave those of us who are in both camps? Believe it or not, gay Christians exist. Though I'm not quite as confusing as the gay/Christian/Republican sort, many people I talk to are sometimes puzzled by how exactly I live as a gay Christian. I am not interested in being grouped into the "gay" category, if that means people will assume I'm a sexually promiscuous immoral radical and I'm not interested in being grouped into the "Christian" category if it means people will assume that I am a devout conservative, following close-minded, anti-gay Bible thumpers. Some of us are gay and believe God loves us the way He created us. Mr. Wilkins' discussion was founded on the idea that thinking about homosexual sex is natural for gays, yet that acting on this desire is giving into temptation. In a comment I found hysterical, Mr. Wilkins said that God's plan was for sex to be only between man and woman, because that's what Adam and Eve did ÷ as if those two were really given a huge dating pool. There will always be those in the Christian community who align themselves with these conservative ideas and think that what I do in my life and how I identify with God is their business, and there will always be homosexuals who think every Christian is out to pray and preach them into heterosexuality. It's too bad more people from both groups aren't interested in civil, intelligent discussion, which might lead to a better understanding of everyone's point of view and actually get us somewhere in this mess.

Christopher Wingert
horn performance and music education senior

Objection to Ch‡vez renaming not racist

If the truth is the first casualty in any war, then Kendrick Wilson single-handedly wiped out an entire platoon in the undeclared "war on racism." Mr. Wilson claims that opposition to renaming the Economics building after CŽsar Ch‡vez is clearly rooted in racism. This is a very common tactic among political extremists ÷ "my reasoning on this position is altruistic, so if you don't agree with me, then your reasoning must be for the absolute worst possible reasons." It is kind of like saying that if you are pro-choice, you endorse murder (sound familiar?).

There is only one group of people in our society that can be stereotyped, maligned and criticized, and that is white men. But contrary to what Mr. Wilson and his ilk may believe, I would like to dispel some of these myths surrounding white folks. First of all, most white people are not racists, and despise groups like the Ku Klux Klan. We don't want racial intolerance in this world and don't want it to be perpetuated. Secondly, racial hatred existed long before the Anglos met the Saxons, and it was not the creation of early Europeans.

Personally, as long as the quality of my education stays the same, I don't care if the Economics building is named after Josef Stalin. However, if this decision were solely mine, then I would vote against it ÷ not because of Mr. Ch‡vez's ancestral origins or any other irrelevant matter, but simply because he is a neo-communist (a system that is anti-liberty and radically different than what is taught in our schools) and he has absolutely nothing to do with this fine university. On the same opinion page Wednesday, another columnist suggests naming the building after Manuel Pacheco, the first and only Hispanic president of the UA.

In my experience, the best way to stop racism is to stop perpetuating it, regardless of the victim's skin color or status.

Michael Williams
pre-business junior

Objectivism rejects right to use force

I applaud Sabrina Noble's stating openly (Issue of the Week: Right to rename Econ. Building?) what most other CŽsar Ch‡vez supporters feel the need to camouflage: that the Ch‡vez' United Farm Workers union openly used violence, intimidation and other coercive means to achieve its goals, which it felt was warranted to achieve its ends. Given that fact, only one's philosophy can judge whether those ends were just or evil.

I believe that every honest person, given the time, will agree on the following: The world is knowable and governed by natural laws (metaphysics of objective reality), that man's faculty of reason is his evolutionary means of survival and his sole means of acquiring knowledge (epistemology of reason), that sustaining his life requires the direction of his mind toward his chosen goals (morality of rational egoism, a.k.a. individualism), and that initiating force against others restricts their freedom of thought and action and is an attack on their means of survival and fundamental rights (politics of capitalism).

Ayn Rand dramatized this integrated philosophy, which she called Objectivism, in her bestselling novels "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged." A poll by the Library of Congress and the New York Times Book of the Month Club named "Atlas Shrugged" the second most influential book among Americans, after the Bible. She further developed these ideas in her six nonfiction works including "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." Some of these books are no doubt on the shelves of your parents and grandparents.

According to Objectivism, man has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ÷ and nothing else. Judging by this standard, the efforts of Ch‡vez to seize and control the products and minds of their fellow workers and employers were evil.

Erik Flesch
geosciences senior
Student Objectivist Society
president

ASUA needs to get its priorities straight

I'd like to take my hat off to ASUA for wanting to reach out to the Tucson community and help make the town a more enjoyable place to live. Although I think it's a noble idea, it's also one that shouldn't be considered critical. ASUA should focus on crime surrounding the campus like car thefts and break-ins, rapes, assaults, etc. before trying to make student parties quieter. There is too much criminal pollution near campus; I don't think that noise pollution should be given more weight. Besides, what good is having a sound night's sleep when your neighbors are having a party when there is still the fear that someone will break into your car or house and rob you? I don't know about you, but I would rather have loud neighbors and avoid the fear of being raped or robbed than the reverse. Nice try, ASUA, but I don't think this would be a step forward for the UA or its neighbors.

Ann Trakhman
business economics and management senior