Forget parking hassles, drive a motorcycle
While I agree with Brett Berry that PTS' "services" and the parking woes that motivate them are one of the least enjoyable aspects of campus life, trying to simply shrug the burden off onto local taxpayers is no solution. All of the objections to the recently failed "bus-on-rails" initiative still exist ÷ there is no reason to believe that people who don't currently ride the bus will suddenly start if only we spend millions to confine said bus to rails. I have a simple and cheap solution for Brett, a "secret" shared by hundreds of savvy campus commuters ÷ it's called a "motorcycle." Not only is the parking permit only $65 a year, a bike also costs much less to buy, maintain, insure, license and fuel than any car. Open MC spaces abound ÷ so much so that riding is actually a feasible way to get around on, as well as merely to, the UA. If more people took advantage of Tucson's perfect riding weather, there would be fewer emissions, traffic and parking problems overall. The only downside ÷ concern for personal safety ÷ can be a plus when you consider that a few years of motorcycle experience tends to make one a more aware, competent and safe driver overall in any vehicle. On a motorcycle, there is little room for carelessness, and obvious motivation to improve your skill and awareness, which has a positive effect on car driving skills as well. It's much better, easier, faster and personally responsible solution than waiting until the next election cycle to try and convince taxpayers to accept a huge debt that will only slightly improve an already unpopular public transportation system long after you graduate.
Scott Benjamin
senior staff technician
Plaza construction a slow, expensive process
The Alumni Plaza, the great monument to those who graduated from the University of Arizona ÷ a nice little thing, but what was the price tag? $4.85 million? All this for a few more red bricks, and a lot less Mall. And didn't they say they would do the major construction work during the winter break? Take a trip to the third floor of the SUMC and see what they have done. I see some wood wrapped around the palm trees, garnished with tasteful caution tape and a nice little white paint. I see the sign that said Îadministration' has been smashed to pieces; those pieces just sitting on the ground. I see they have removed the benches, all two or three of them that were there. There is a pole that has plenty of beautiful collegiate yellow caution tape wrapped around it. The asphalt that we used to walk on is still there, except for about 10 square feet that has been ripped up and left in its place. There are a few random metal poles on the ground, in a small, attractive pile that just screams "alumni, look at us now!" There are no construction vehicles, no tools, and there is no noise to prove there is a multi-million dollar construction project going on. Just what are we spending this $4.85 million on? Is throwing a bench away and wrapping a pole in tape a valid reason to engulf our gorgeous Mall? Is the reason it won't be finished until fall that they don't plan to really start until summer? What were they thinking?
Alan Fullmer
journalism freshman
Military background proves asset to Clark
According to Jonna Lopez, we shouldn't elect Gen. Wesley Clark President because we don't know what he will do if he gets in office. All we know about him is that he talks the talk and has a nice "military resume," whatever that is. She might find it interesting that nearly one in four U.S. Presidents have been generals, most notably George Washington and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Neither of the two had any political career before becoming President. In fact, Eisenhower went straight from being Supreme Commander of NATO to being President. Part of Wesley Clark's "military resume" is, as you will recall, being Supreme Commander of NATO.
Howard Dean, on the other hand, managed to go skiing after being excused from military service because of his "bad back." Plus, he gets a little, shall we say, "excited" at times. I'm sure there are a lot of important buttons in the Oval Office, we wouldn't want him pushing the red one during one of his tantrums.
Andrew Tuohy
political science senior
U.S., Nazi foreign policy alarmingly close
I'd like to add to Christopher Haney's well-written response (Jan. 22) to Aaron Okin's criticism of the MoveOn.org ad contest on Jan. 21 ("The face of anti-Bush tactics"). It's generally not a good idea to carelessly generate Hitler comparisons, something of which both sides of the so-called spectrum are guilty. The comparisons are often overly emotional, inappropriate and cheapen the horrors of Nazi Germany.
That having been said, there is a specific comparison between current U.S. foreign policy and that of the Nazis that I find disturbingly clear. I believe it's the one referred to by Mr. Okin as "baseless." Hitler invaded Poland and justified it as preventive warfare (not to be confused with pre-emptive warfare, where an enemy attack is clearly imminent). He claimed without good evidence that Poland was planning to invade Germany.
Afterward, preventive warfare was condemned at the International War Crimes Tribunal in Nuremberg, and in the U.N. charter.
I doubt that anyone would take issue with the need for this condemnation. It makes warfare based on conjecture illegal. In 1953, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was presented with plans to disarm the Soviet Union through preventive warfare. He rejected the approach outright as a Nazi tactic.
But here's the problem: Wasn't the recent U.S. invasion of Iraq a clear example of preventive warfare? Haven't we realized yet that it was based on conjecture?
I wonder how Republican attitudes have changed during this administration. Were the War Crimes Tribunal, the U.N. and Eisenhower mistaken?
The White House wants to justify its policy by saying that the nature of our enemies has changed. But it's not clear how these reasons, as disturbing as they are, applied to the government of Iraq under Hussein. I think the comparison here holds water.
Patrick Bolger
second language acquisition and teaching graduate student