Comic shouldn't have dissed Slipknot
I'm wondering what Mr. Padilla is so upset about. Did a juggalo steal your girlfriend? Did you get hit in the head with a two liter of Faygo recently?
Because those are the only reasons I can think of for your misinformed, disrespectful, and childish sentiments directed at Mr. Bruce and Mr. Utsler in your comic on Tuesday. I found the attacks to be in very bad taste and merely a reflection of your ignorance of the topics you choose to illustrate. There are thousands if not millions who listen to the "noise" you refer to and with at least four platinum records and another four gold I would guess that at least a few of those listeners have some self respect. They are successful without radio or video popularity because they connect with their listeners on levels that you would not begin to comprehend. The most offensive and confusing thing about your illustration was the drug references. This obviously demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about. There are a lot of things that have been traditionally cited as controversial or inappropriate in their music, but drug references minor as they are, are not among that list.
If you are going to insult someone, especially unprovoked and for no good reason, you should at least make sure your attack is relevant. Your unflattering portrayal of one of the more successful groups in music (15 years is pretty good with no airplay) only shows your immaturity as an artist and says a lot about your character. If you know what's so dope, you should make it yourself, and quit judging everybody else? MCL.
Robert Portley
Pre-physiology sophomore
UN unworthy of credibility
One would think an organization as embattled as the United Nations would be more concerned about cleaning up their image. Considering the widespread rape and child prostitution happening in the Congo what business they have hosting the Commission on the Status of Women right now is a mystery. In the words of U.N. representative William Swing, "We have had and continue to have a serious problem of sexual exploitation and abuse." The exposés of journalists in the region, which depict a situation out of control makes this a serious understatement. Yet despite this admission and years of international outcry over this sex-for-food scandal, there is currently no major investigation under way, as U.N. leaders pass the buck to member states.
This seems to be the rule and not the exception. Sexual abuse follows U.N. forces wherever they go, the most recent travesty being the traffic in underage prostitutes in Bosnia in 2001. Ten years after the genocide in Rwanda and vows of "Never again," they do nothing when the same thing happens in the Sudan. Their apparent deal with Saddam at the expense of starving Iraqis is made worse by their attempts to obstruct the current investigation. To address major modern problems like nuclear proliferation or terrorism they offer rhetoric or an occasional toothless resolution.
All this begs the question: What exactly is the point of their existence? The answer is disaster relief, as illustrated by the tsunami aid effort. They are a glorified Red Cross and any pretense of political moral authority is laughable, especially when it comes to women's rights. The flocking of feminists this week to an organization that refuses to hunt down their own child rapists sickens me.
Bret Reed
senior majoring in English
Chocolate vaginas disrespect women
Today, I just saw the most ridicules picture and most stupid idea on the Wildcat this semester; the so-called V- chocolate which some members of the so called Oasis Program for Sexual Assault and Relationship Violence were selling on the UA Mall to promote such an important cause. I can't even utter the word. It is so disrespectful and out of taste to the point where I couldn't even write it down just out of respect to those who really value women and happen to read this article. Why would you turn women private parts into chocolate and pretend that you are protecting them by doing so? Are you trying to be cool? Well, such matter, I believe is not the appropriate one to be cool about!
Was this the only way to raise awareness about sexual assault and relationship violence? It is the most stupid idea I have ever encountered.
People, please think straight and come up with good, creative and sane ideas.
You are college students, for God's sake, don't be so dumb!
What is your point from such dumb idea, how is it, practically, going to make people respect women more? Or stop sexual assault?
In fact, I have no respect for you whatsoever for showcasing women's private parts in public. Have some respect for yourselves, being women, and most importantly, to those women whom you are pretending, stupidly, to represent.
Next time, you must consult with some wise people before you start producing such disrespectful and stupid ideas, thus turning such an important issue into a disgusting and laughable one.
To those sensible and respectful women, for your own sake, please rise up and put an end to such demeaning behavior.
Tawfik Maudah
interdisciplinary studies senior
Front page vagina inappropriate
I must admit that I was rather taken aback with the front page of the Wildcat today. To see a chocolate vagina lofted high in support of advertising seemed inappropriate, to say the least. My initial reaction was shock and pondering "What the world has come to?" Had you broadcast such a thing over television, you would have been subject to complaints under the Communications Decency Act and other Federal Communications Commission regulations. Luckily for you, print media enjoys a bloated sense of allowable speech. Ultimately, there isn't much I can say to explicate your error, but let me just say that shocking your readers with such a blatant display of, even chocolate, genitals goes too far. Almost as far as the "Vagina Monologues" went in 2001 in San Francisco by posting a five-story tall, vertical billboard which read merely "Pu-y." This isn't about exposing shame or societal stigma attached with female sexuality; this is about decency and respect. If it's so healthy to display and celebrate womanhood, why aren't more women running around nude, displaying their bodies for the world to see? It begs the question whether you'd be offended to see guys passing out chocolate phalluses in celebration of masculine identity, or whether you'd welcome it un-hypocritically.
Jacob Lauser
alumnus
Student section a step backward
I feel compelled to express my dissatisfaction with the new student section. I do not see how replacing already poor student seating with even worse ceiling seats can be considered a win-win situation for anyone but the program, who can now sell the former student section end seats as season seats for more money.
Please we, the students of the University of Arizona are an educated group of people and passing this ridiculous plan off as good for us is to say the least a joke. I had student seats this season in what many nationally have referred to as the worst student section in the NCAA. The idea of these already bad, end seats, behind the goal, becoming nosebleed seats is completely unacceptable.
The athletic department should be expanding the student section not looking for ways to eliminate it.
The UA athletic department needs to realize that students make the game-day atmosphere an event not all the rich old fogies and cooperate big wigs who have the privilege of holding the good seats for forever and a day. Is that why they want us all together, are we disturbing the old folks with our cheering, it is obvious that they are the primary consideration.
Angela Sanchez
public management and policy senior
Prof had problems before comments
While I agree that after reading "Some People Push Back" that Ward Churchill was utilizing his freedom of speech and that may not justify his resignation, I will also say you cannot break this down to a bad analogy. Churchill refused to repeal or clarify his comments vociferously. Now this is not the only situation that's ruining Churchill's career. Prominent liberal professor Paul Campos has written and requested Churchill citing Churchill's incidents of plagiarism, theft, and falsified lineage. Churchill is accused, this is before the 9/11 paper, of stealing a painting. Also he is accused of lying about his heritage. He got to his position at Colorado University as head of the department through affirmative action. He claims to be of Native American descent, which CU and his birth records are now charging is false. He also wrote on atrocities committed against the Native Americans, which historians and scientists are saying were false. While I support his freedom of speech, his soon to be removal from CU has a lot more to do with more serious charges.
Tom Deakin
industrial engineering sophomore