|
Arizona Daily Wildcat
Friday, April 1, 2005
Print this
Gerner's attire asked for treatment
I have been reading the Wildcat this past semester on a daily basis, and I must say, enough is enough. I have read countless articles on how horrible it was for Steven Gerner to be denied entrance into the president's Social Security reform speech. I was one of the fortunate few students who were able to attend the president's speech. Prior to entering the town hall I was bombarded by protesters telling me how stupid I was and how stupid the president is. I watched the protesters yell obscene chants and make horrible gestures at the president's motorcade. All the while the volunteers and police never interfered or kicked out any of those people. That's why I find it hard to believe or find any credibility in Steven Gerner's story. Steven, if you really only went to the president's speech with the intentions of just listening and trying to gain knowledge on the future of Social Security, then why did you wear a Young Democrats shirt? Everyone else was wearing business casual attire (slacks, a colored shirt and a tie) while you were wearing a T-shirt that brought direct attention to yourself. So Steven and the rest of the Wildcat staff, stop portraying Steven as some innocent child who got his civil liberties taken from him by the big bad Bush supporters. If Steven was truly going to gain knowledge and hear what his tax dollars' future was then he would have done it professionally like everyone else and worn proper attire to the speech. Stop using this as an opportunity to bash the president because the last time I checked he wasn't the one who denied your entry.
Sean O'Neill political science sophomore
Residence Life not building community
This year is my first year at the UA and even though I'm 22 and a junior, I chose to stay in the dorms as a way to ease into living in a new city and state and to make it easier to find new friends. Since August, I have had the opportunity to see how Residence Life operates from both sides of the conduct process. I've been active occasionally in the Residence Hall Association, have a great relationship with my hall director and resident assistant as well as many of my dorm's other RAs, and I was even nominated for the Resident of the Month honor last semester. On the other hand I have been written up (cited for misconduct) a total of four times out of a possible six, from which I was saved only because of my standing with the staff.
On paper I look like a real jerk, the kind of person who shouldn't be allowed to stay in the dorms, which will most likely be the outcome of my conduct hearing which I will be attending as you read this letter. But that's the problem, this system isn't about serving the residents, it's about a "preponderance of evidence." It's not about community building, it's about a streamlined process that makes it as easy as possible for a third party to pass judgment on the accused without real proof. It's a system that rewards liars because coming up with a good story and coordinating it with others involved gets you off the hook where as telling the truth gets you a condescending smile and a boot out the door.
The real issue is that Residence Life is too rigid. RAs aren't allowed to use their own judgment because they are "just doing their job." There is no gray area that you find in a real community like the town I grew up in, where police worked with us when we were caught breaking minor laws.
We aren't children. Perhaps it's time that we start being treated like adults if Residence Life wants us to act like them.
Stephen Covell creative writing junior
Sunglass styles change
OK, let's be honest. Big sunglasses are not affecting women's rights or individuality. In regard to the outlandish letter, "Big sunglasses bad for women," here is a ridiculous response. What we really need to understand is that styles change. Sunglass styles are no different. Sunglasses are trendy and are often and important accessory. There was a time when small round lenses were popular in sunglasses, they were the current trend. Ultimately, both the big sunglasses and the round small ones serve the same purpose: to protect eyes from the sun and to portray style. Professionals seem to agree that sun damage to the eye is considerably lessened when sunglasses are worn. I have a hard time believing that wearing sunglasses to hide ugliness is the fundamental reason for wearing sunglasses. Big versus small; they still only cover the eyes. Is a woman's only indication for beauty her eyes? With summer's revealing outfits rapidly approaching, I am sure that men will find other aspects of the female body to appreciate.
All jokes aside, I do acknowledge that sometimes people wear different accessories to embellish their look in an effort to obscure their lazy appearance. Sunglasses may be one of them for women, hats could be considered an article for men and like sunglasses, hats are also considered fashion accessories. What easier way is there to deal with unruly hair, or the lack of motivation to style it than to wear a hat? The same applies for sunglasses. At the risk of sounding condescending, I think that the letter "Big sunglasses bad for women" is reading just a little too far into things. I applaud the author for caring about women's rights, but maybe there is a better place for us to focus our attention.
Christine Gniedziejka psychology senior
Library needs to do CatCard checks
Anyone who has ever had the joy of studying in the library late at night knows that two things are almost guaranteed to be found: freshmen masturbating and bums. Well, you might not find a freshman there but nearly every time I have been there I have had the pleasure of coming across bums. Now, I don't hate the homeless, I just really don't like them - well except when they're paid to fight on the Internet. Yeah, I know they've probably had a hard life and the best part of their day is when they meet up with their good friend Jack Daniel's and go browse the Internet at the Main Library. But hey, who said they could be there all day and night? The Main Library is open 24 hours Sunday through Thursday while school is in session. The doors of the main library lock at 1 a.m., and you need a CatCard to get in after that, but if you're in before then you don't have to worry about needing a CatCard to stay in. This means if you're a bum, felon or rapist you're free to wander around the library at night, as long as you don't leave and try to come in again. I really don't like smelling the bums and I think the Main Library should do something about it. The Arizona Health Sciences Library is also open 24 hours a day most of the year and that's one place I have never come across a bum and that's because the staff there has some common sense - they have random CatCard checks. During the check a security officer will walk through the library and just ask to see your CatCard and make sure if your in the library you're a student or staff member who has some business there, not some part time drunk that smells like a port-a-potty, looking for a place to hang out. So, why doesn't the Main Library do random CatCard checks? My theory is that they use the bums to power the library by placing the bums in human size hamster wheels and make them chase bottles of malt liquor.
Rene Lomeli molecular and cellular biology junior
Feeding tubes getting a bad name
As a nutrition student, I feel I must clarify some of the comments made by Katie Mann regarding feeding tubes, particularly her statement that "once you need a tube to feed you, your life is over." This is simply not true. Feeding tubes provide nutrition support to those who are unable to take food by mouth. This includes those who cannot chew or swallow due to illness or injury. In other cases, a patient's nutritional requirements are such that adequate nutrition cannot be provided through normal oral feedings, and tubes are used to supplement the diet. Those suffering severe malnutrition, such as anorexic patients, or those with critical injuries or illness fall into this category. While some of these patients, like Terri Schiavo, will require feeding tubes for life, many patients are on this type of nutrition support short-term until they are able to resume oral feedings. Feeding tubes should not be condemned - they are necessary to provide adequate nutrition while patients are incapacitated.
Alexandra Clinton nutritional sciences senior
Fines for pedestrian violations too steep
I am writing in response to the Wildcat's recent article, "Bicyclists, pedestrians must follow law as well." I commend you for alerting the university community about the need for increased pedestrian and bicycle safety. However, I also believe that members of the Tucson Police Department are engaged in a thoughtless and unjust administration of the law. In many circumstances, the violations (i.e., punishments) being issued do not fit their crimes by any reasonable interpretation. Let me describe what I see as an egregious abuse of power by the Tucson Police in Ward 6.
At 7:30 a.m., at the intersection of Fourth Avenue and Sixth Street, an officer with the Tucson Police Department stopped my fiancée and I for running across the street while the traffic light was red. The officer cited each of us in violation of § A.R.S. 28-645(A)(3)(d) as follows: "Pedestrian Against Signal." The cost of this civil violation is a $235 ticket each, and the ordinance violation is equivalent to us having run the red light in a motor vehicle, which I believe is a far, far more dangerous act. While I admit to having crossed the intersection when the light was red, the cited violation and resulting fee, is unjust and unconscionable. As a result of simply crossing against the light as runners (when absolutely no traffic was in sight and the situation was entirely safe at that hour) we incurred $470 in ticketed violations that will result in possible increased car insurance rates and points on our licenses.
I committed a civil ordinance violation in running against the signal and willingly accept responsibility for my actions. Part of taking responsibility means accepting a just punishment. I would be happy to do so if the city and Tucson Police reconsider the way in which these violations are being distributed and the recklessness with which they levy $235 citations. Punishments should fit their crimes. Surely a $25-$50 citation (or merely a stern warning) would have made me reconsider my actions very carefully. But $235 for running across the road? This is outright robbery.
David Sbarra assistant professor of psychology
Write a Letter to the Editor
|
|
|
