Warming rhetoric simply fact of 'pseudoscience'

Kendrick Wilson's article yesterday ("Humans may be responsible for desert's drought") is an example of pseudoscience commonly used to point blame on a problem not completely understood. By "pseudoscience" I mean illogical reasoning disguised as scientific fact to increase its acceptance among the public. The concept of global warming is not pseudoscience - it is a heavily documented fact and an issue that must be taken seriously, as it could (and probably will) impact Earth's climate and, ultimately, the well being of her inhabitants. The severe drought plaguing the Southwest is also an important problem. Combining the two and blaming man for the problem takes some creativity, not fact. The sense of urgency in doing so, where such a statement precedes scientific evidence, is indicative of something else entirely - namely, the pushing of the idea that man's actions are destroying nature and are therefore fundamentally evil. Call this idea "environmentalism" or what you will - until we have more than just a vague understanding of global warming or the persistent drought of the Southwest, the "scientific" reasons behind the idea are nothing more than pseudoscientific babble.

I believe it's important to treat the Earth with respect - it's the only one we have. In order to respect it, we must understand it first. But science is a slow process - too slow for some who only want to use science to promote their own views of the world. For them, there is the quick, painless world of pseudoscience. As responsible people, we should not only try to understand the world, but weed out the garbage that forms so many of the accepted ideas of our society.

Aaron Finke
chemistry junior

A university education hardly a 'birthright'

It is inconceivable that Jason Poreda can utter his thoughts and still have a shred of dignity about him. Our responsibilities as UA students do not include facilitating funds to underprivileged students so they can join the ranks of the Wildcats. Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, "A people that values its privileges over its principles soon loses both." The constituency of the UA, if this abominable idea creates the necessary red tape, is in danger of the aforementioned warning.

Peter Likins, along with the rest of the UA governing body, is in the process of creating an aura of prestige that is to consume the campus. To illustrate my relevant frustration, I will take a card from "Sesame Street." Which one is not like the other? Nearly abolishing the presence of greek life on campus, implementing offensive underage drinking biases, shrinking class sizes, romanticizing the idea of good grades or creating the belief that college is a birth right, and that those of us who earned our stay need to pave the way for our underprivileged counterparts?

President Likins: On behalf of the student body, I propose that you perpetuate the prestige of this campus and deny the proposition to open the floodgates.

Sam Richard
journalism freshman

'B-Fish' comic just as racist as 'Sarape's Grill'

It used to be that "Sarape's Grill" served as the controversial comic in the Wildcat. But Friday's "B-Fish" managed to raise a couple of eyebrows as well. The stereotypical depiction of Native Americans as described as Mounds Indians and Almond Joy Indians is very inappropriate. But since the Wildcat objectifies Mexicans in "Sarape's Grill," why not start doing the same with Native Americans? The Wildcat comics these days seem to want to capture that 1950s mentality of overt racism in media. What's next, Pukey Bear in black face? Please keep the humor up to date and stop portraying people of color as objectified stereotypes. It's no wonder people keep asking me, "Do you still live in teepees?"

Travis Lane
UA alumnus

Athletes don't have it as easy as some think

I highly doubt many students understand the rigorous oversight that student athletes must endure, all the while going through the same difficult classes as everyone else. Mr. Wilson proposes that student athletes get jobs to support themselves. Not only will this affect their ability to train and study, but NCAA regulations limit student athlete's abilities to get jobs in regard to when they may work, and what income they may receive. The duty to follow these guidelines is not only a responsibility of the student, but also the university. The increased oversight costs incurred on the university would invariably negate the student athlete's outside job salary. So not only would the university spend the same amount of money, the students would be penalized by their increased time costs.

Dan Norwood
pre-computer science sophomore

Foreign grad students 'active participants'

Recently a letter was published disparaging the work of foreign graduate teaching assistants in the department of English.

In response, I write to express appreciation for the presence and the work of international graduate teaching assistants in the department. This academic year we have international graduate teaching assistants from Canada, Romania, Turkey, England, Korea, Kazakhstan, Spain and China. These graduate teaching assistants are active participants in our teaching training programs, they strive with other GATs to support undergraduate students in the improvement of their writing and, like their colleagues who are U.S. citizens, they regularly earn very strong scores in the teaching effectiveness category of the Teacher-Course Evaluations. International graduate students are enrolled in graduate programs in creative writing, literature, rhetoric, composition and the teaching of English and English language/linguistics, as well as in the graduate interdisciplinary program in SLAT. They enrich the graduate programs with their presence, adding international experience and perspective as well as intellectual diversity. We are very happy that they are a part of our department.

Larry Evers
head of English department

Proselytizing has no place at UA basketball

The Women's Wildcat basketball team played hard against the Athletes in Action, a Christian team of ex-professional and college players on Nov 13. They may have lost 81-77 in overtime, but it was an exciting fight.

I began to sense that something unusual was going on when my friend and I were given color pamphlets that we were told were free programs.

Our "program" had questions like, "Have you found a purpose for your life?" and "Do you know God personally?" My suspicions were confirmed.

Halftime came and the Lady Cats disappeared into their lair, but the AIA remained out on the floor. They formed a circle, facing toward the stands.

A player stepped forward with a microphone and told her story about being disturbed over her attraction to other women. Another player told of her eating disorders. Another told a lengthier tale about her family's issues, which included incest and, later, abortions.

My immediate reaction, and that of many other fans around me, was disorientation. Hadn't we just been watching these same talented athletes playing a solid game of basketball? Why now were they exposing their personal problems before a crowd that had just been cheering against them?

I sensed something going on because their presentations were carefully worded and well rehearsed. Then I stopped wondering. I realized these women were practicing the art of what in the Christian world is called "witnessing," broadcasting their religious faith. The stories were sensational, each patterned alike, telling how the individual was transformed from bad circumstances to redemption in the name of Jesus Christ.

After the game, AIA athletes scattered among the crowd and formed small prayer circles here and there. I thought, "Am I in a church gym? Is this how it must be to live in Iran?"

Imagine coming to a basketball game and at halftime listening to a political speech by a Libertarian candidate for president. Imagine another halftime where Sunni Muslims come and pray and proselytize in hopes of increasing their numbers. Absurd? Of course. Why? Because both examples represent minorities.

What I want to know is: Isn't there a rule on the UA books that upholds the separation of church and state at school events?

Sadly, UA Events Management needs a reminder that it is incumbent upon a public university like ours to consider the appropriateness of where and how non-secular views are expressed. Sure there's free speech. Do you want to go to the football game to hear why you need to join the Elk's Club? Free speech is not a free-for-all, Christian culture or not.

Bobby Rothschild
communication sophomore

Muslim students push own beliefs on others

Many of the responses in yesterday's paper stated that Ramadan was the perfect time to bring the Muslim religion to the forefront and to educate those on the Muslim religion as a whole, but these people are missing a major point: Many people don't care to learn about your religion! By trying to be so politically correct to the minority, many times today's society begins to alienate the majority. By publishing letters that state "Praise Allah" or "Happy Ramadan," the Wildcat is alienating those who do not worship in the same way. And don't think it is just because Ramadan is a Muslim holiday, because I would feel the same way if I opened up the newspaper to read "Jesus, our lord and savior." It seems very hypocritical to me that these Muslim students feel that it is only fair to allow Muslim-driven articles to be published in the Wildcat because it is in fact freedom of speech. But then when a student, such as Seth Frantzman, states his opinion, these same Muslim students refer to him as being racist, ignorant and afraid of the Muslim religion. Why is this acceptable, but if the roles were reversed and Frantzman was to call the Muslim students ignorant and afraid of Christianity there would be a huge uproar from the community? It's not right. I don't understand why these Muslim students feel the need to prove their dedication to the Muslim religion by pressing their beliefs upon others, but I do know that a school-run newspaper like the Wildcat is not the appropriate forum for such righteous acts. So for the future, please keep religious articles out of the newspaper. And for those students who chose to write in, and will probably do so again, take a moment to look at the hypocrisy of your own letters and save the educating for the professors.

Ross Hager
undeclared freshman

'Back-alley' doesn't relate to abortion ban

Once again illogical comments accompanied the debate on abortion when Mr. Selsor's letter exclaimed, "My moral absolutes do not include a desire for women and scared teenage girls to seek back-alley abortions." The partial-birth abortion ban actually only prohibits abortions that take place in the ninth months of pregnancy, in the very last minutes prior to birth. This means that the life of a child that could live without the mother is brutally cut short by a vicious procedure that is totally unnecessary, with the exception of instances when the health of the mother is at stake.

The reality is that pregnant women have up to eight months of knowing they are pregnant to make the decision to abort. Don't you think you could make the decision to abort a fetus within, say, seven months? This idea that "scared teenage girls" are being forced into the alley for abortions is pure hyperbole. The reality is these girls have plenty of time in which to seek a legal, safe abortion.

Those that oppose partial-birth abortion oppose it because it ends a life that is 100 percent viable, which in most cases, would and should be called murder. If you killed the child a day after it was born, you would be a criminal, so why should it be legal to kill the child a day before it is born? When people like Mr. Selsor can answer that question intelligently, then the ban on partial-birth abortion can be discussed. Unfortunately, the debate on abortion is always brought down to the gutter of propaganda rather then discussed in an open forum where ideas can be expressed without hateful and extremist comments being made by both sides.

Seth Frantzman
UA alumnus