Liberals concerned with means, not end
This letter is in response to Jeff Beran's letter "Iraqi elections prove liberals wrong." Beran's letter is a perfect example of the ignorance of conservatives. Jeff apparently believes that liberals said that democracy could not be achieved in Iraq. Jeff unfortunately is mistaken. We liberals are more concerned with how democracy would be brought to Iraq. We are not disputing that is could be brought to Iraq. We are concerned with the means, not the simple end. We believe that wars should only be fought when we have to, not when we (Bush) simply wish to. Inventing weapons of mass destruction and drawing false connections between bin Laden and Hussein was a deceptive, immoral scheme the Bush administration employed to get America into an unjust war. Sure we could bomb, invade and take over every non-democratic country in the world, "instilling" peace and democracy, but would that be right? We have seen the sad, unnecessary loss of life in Iraq with the 1,546 American casualties and almost 18,000 Iraqi civilians killed. Is this the right way to instill peace and democracy in a county? No, it's not right. That's what liberals believe.
Jeff Graves
political science freshman
Playboy shows good, valuable journalism
In response to Dillon Fishman's article on Tuesday, I strongly disagree with some of his rather bold assertions. However, I would not go so far as to label him a "Christian conservative moral crusader," as was written by Connor Beckley in the letters section.
Mr. Fishman's opinion is entirely worthy based on his values, and all should laud his plea for media consumers to demand more from their entertainment providers.
But I would like to clarify his missed points.
Mr. Fishman's first target, Playboy magazine, takes a lot of flack for its two monthly features of female nudes. In addition to these eye-catching, heterosexual male-pleasing images, Playboy serves as one of the most socially relevant publications that most average folks will likely access in a typical month. Not only does the magazine consistently feature exceptional journalistic commentary by some of America's leading writers, but also, the commentary within Playboy's Forum section provides a wealth of critical insight into the current social and political environment. Additionally, the magazine regularly supports and promotes a wide variety of charitable and scientific causes related to such issues, including fidelity, feminism, freedom, and a whole gang of "F" words that only a draconian ignoramus could find offensive. Playboy is a lifestyle magazine, targeted at adult men, and regularly asserts its purpose in affecting positive change in the minds and policies of America. Perhaps that is why the opinion section is constantly filled with letters written by those who claim to abhor the publication (yet pay very close attention to its messages from month to month).
Next, Fishman simultaneously introduced the public obsession over "Nipplegate" and discussed the fact that Americans overwhelmingly choose entertainment devoid of morality. I am not sure where exactly he was taking this argument, but I'm sure that the column was excluded from those "Nipplegate" types of outcries, right?
Patrick Brennan
entrepreneurship and marketing senior
Community college degrees not subpar
This is in response to Badreddin Edris' letter titled "Colleges shouldn't offer four-year degree."
While the community colleges are used as a stepping stone for some students, for others it is their college experience. Just because people get a degree from a community college doesn't make their education "sub-par." Have you ever heard of the phrase "All generalizations are false, including this one?"
As to your statement of "Would you feel comfortable with someone with a sub-par degree one day caring for you in a hospital," yes, I would feel comfortable. Cochise College in Douglas is accredited with National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission (NLNAC), while the UA has not been (www.allnursingschools.com). I'm not saying that the students at the UA are getting a sub-par education; but that Cochise is accredited in giving a quality education.
Earning a degree at the community college is not getting a sub-par education, it's making as good of students as the UA. Why don't you go down to Cochise College, enroll in the nursing program, and see if you can survive two years?
Don't be so quick to judge things that you have never experienced.
Ross Richard
environmental science senior
Columnist addresses religion correctly
We want to thank Jonathan Riches for speaking up on behalf of religion. On this campus there seems to be an attitude that you are either a follower of Brother Jed or you are an atheist. There seems to be no middle ground. It seems like the only options are fundamentalism or completely denouncing all religious institutions. Like Riches points out, religions have valuable things to teach and bring community and joy to many people's lives. We often discuss the differences and flaws of our respective religions (Christianity and Judaism). We enjoy looking at the value of both traditions, and even though we may not agree with every nuance, we both respect each other's beliefs and those of others. Just because a few people use religion as an excuse for their actions does not mean it's time to turn our backs on it. Despite one's personal beliefs, it cannot be denied that religion has value and should be respected. For every person who distorts or manipulates religion there are at least 100 more who are open minded with no agenda. A common question is "if there is enough religion to incite war, how come there is not enough to instill peace?" The answer to this is that it is not religion that incites war but people's misinterpretations or fanaticism. If these same people understood the peace their religion professes then there would be no problem. It comes down to this: Religion as a whole is not bad; it is the flawed people who try to control it that bring it down. Thanks again, Jonathan, for bringing some light to an issue which has been dogmatized for too long.
Faith Holschbach
religious studies freshman
Jessica Sobel
pre-education freshman
Sunglasses natural beauty, not fashion
I am writing in to clarify my position on big sunglasses. I didn't intend to start the ball rolling so that a new letter would appear on a daily basis. I intended to make a personal point, an opinion if you will.
I personally believe big sunglasses are ugly and they don't make women look any prettier. So as one letter claimed, I was sexist for telling women what to do for my benefit, then so be it. I just don't think it is sexist to encourage women to embrace their natural beauty and to be different.
If women use sunglasses to cover up their faces on days they don't wear makeup (yes many of them do this) then that's just flat out stupidity. Accept the fact that you look just fine with or without makeup; in fact, some women look better when they choose not to pile on their makeup by the pound.
My other point with big sunglasses is that most don't wear them to block out the sun as they now claim, otherwise they'd wear the big sunglasses my grandmother wears, which by the way are just as ugly as yours. You can protect your eyes without covering up your entire face. According to the Arizona Daily Wildcat, 12 percent of women wear them because they think they're sexy. Is it really sexy for you to do the same thing as every other woman you see on TV? Are you really that sexy because you're the same as everyone else? Who is ever going to appreciate you for being just the same as the person walking right next to you? I certainly won't.
End the letters. End the complaining and the applauding. This is a silly issue and it's a shame we've all wasted so much time on it. All I wanted was for the few women that wear the big sunglasses and follow silly fashion trends, for whatever stupid reason, to stop for just a second and think about why they wear them.
Doug McConville
media arts freshman
Pope revolutionary in his own ways
In Viscardi's view of Pope John Paul II, I believe he fails to comprehend the entire legacy of this pope. He was the first public figure to hold an AIDS baby at a time when no one understood the disease. His influence and staunch pursuit of religious freedom led to the demise of communism. His World Youth Days affirmed the beliefs of millions of young people. He questioned the Vatican bureaucracy and defied it many times in his 26 years. He publicly apologized for the Catholic church's sins during his papacy. He is beloved by millions because of his humanity. He even forgave his attempted assassin (I doubt few would be able claim the same). He upheld women's rights and their role in the church. He was a prolific writer with regard to this issue. Though his views were not shared by some, this does not mean he was against women's rights. During his papacy, the Catholic population increased to more than one billion people, mostly in nations in the Southern hemisphere. This is no small feat, especially in a time when organized religion is in a downturn in the Western world. Those that are confused by his legacy fail to realize that he was the world's pope, not just of the Western world. His traditionalist views may not appeal to some, but to the remainder of the hundreds of millions of people that he inspired and helped, those views pale in comparison to all the good he has brought to the world. His efforts in peace, religious freedom and unity and the youth are his legacy. Of course, being human does lead to certain flaws, but that should never discount the positive. He can claim what most of us should envy a faith in the good of all.
Olivia Coppus
alumna