Criticism of Bobcats funding goes too far

The Arizona Daily Wildcat correctly reported yesterday in the column "ASUA funding prone to errors" that Bobcats Senior Honorary was not technically recognized when it received funding from the Associated Students of the University of Arizona to help pay for the cost of Homecoming. However, it seems the writer chose to omit a few keys facts.

First, any column written concerning the funding allocated to Bobcats Senior Honorary must mention that almost every penny of the money goes directly back to the university, either to supplies for events that a large number of students participate in or - where most of the money goes - to our university's facilities management department, which is kind enough to set up and clean up certain aspects vital to Homecoming.

The column should have also mentioned that no money was directly transferred from ASUA to Bobcats Senior Honorary. Instead, the funds went to the University of Arizona Alumni Association, an entity on this campus that dedicates its time to ensure that the heritage of the university is never forgotten.

Thirdly, it should be known that Bobcats Senior Honorary had no indication that it was not a recognized club until approximately two weeks ago. To the best of its knowledge, the proper steps were taken to become an official organization. As soon as the group was notified that a small step in the process had not been completed, the problem was immediately addressed and remedied.

Homecoming is one of the only events all year that ties students, alumni, faculty and the Tucson community together to celebrate the UA. ASUA has been a proud sponsor of this event for a many years and realizes that this particular allocation is not a normal club funding request. Bobcats does not use the money, like other clubs, to promote its own organization. It does not print flyers that advertise the club, send students across the country for conferences or print

banners to recruit membership with ASUA money. Furthermore, Bobcats is not a typical club on campus. It has been around for more than 80 years and is represented by 13 of the most involved and academically accomplished seniors at the UA.

It seems, in this case, that the Wildcat has taken a small mistake and blown it out of proportion. In fact, the column is almost completely unnecessary. A small paperwork error slipped through the cracks, and no one should be to blame. Homecoming was a success, and the money went to good use. The only thing that this column will possibly accomplish is creating more red tape that entities on this campus will have to walk through in order to work together with the goal of making the university better.

Blake Buchanan
Bobcats Senior Honorary president
Journalism senior

Communist group shouldn't be allowed on campus

Can we really allow a young communist league to associate itself with our great university (yesterday's "Young communists labor to begin own UA chapter")? No, absolutely not. I am all for freedom of speech and association, but the school doesn't have to acknowledge such a detrimental group. How quickly we forget our history - not long ago we were fighting wars against communism. Communism denounces everything that makes America great.

They might say that we are limiting their freedom of speech and that we are being biased by not letting them become a chapter of the university. I say that we are protecting our freedom by not acknowledging this group. Communists don't want you to be free; they want the government to tell you what you can and can't do. But they will still use democracy and freedom to advance their right to tell you what to do. They use the foundation of America, freedom, to tell you why it is bad. The irony is overwhelming. Communism kills! This is not debatable. The record is crystal-clear. The U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee conducted investigations into the number killed in the Soviet Union and China. Their report stated that 35 to 45 million had been killed in the Soviet Union and 34 to 62.5 million in Communist China. Is this what the university wants representing them? If we allow the Young Communist League, what is next? The young Jihads? Just like the terrorists, communists want to see America and freedom fall. If the young communists become a chapter at this university then the slippery slope of anti-Americanism will begin. Stopping this organization is essential to our university's safety and credibility.

Sean O'Neill
Political science junior

Marijuana-friendly dorm not a good priority

I wholeheartedly agree with Melissa Mauzy's opinion on marijuana (in Monday's "University should create marijuana-friendly dorm") - as long as the student is using marijuana as part of his medical regimen to treat pain from a proven migraine condition or to help him keep down food as a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy. No one is saying that marijuana is bad in all cases, but rather that it is a controlled substance that has effects on the mind. So Mauzy, what is your plan for the legalization of marijuana? Since, in order for there to be a marijuana-only dorm, marijuana would have to be legalized, will there be an age limit? Because if there isn't, then there shouldn't be an age limit for alcohol and tobacco. In fact, I believe that there are a far greater number of people on this campus who are addicted to tobacco. Rather than prevent them from going through with their completely legal addiction in the comfort of their own dorms, we sequester them to the outside. When writing a paper, one might want to smoke a cigarette to relax. In fact, there are many reputable authors who smoked tobacco while writing. So if we're going to stoop to allowing people who make a choice to smoke marijuana (marijuana is a non-addictive substance) why not stop discriminating against those who use substances that are legal? If we're going to raise society to a state of enlightenment through the legalization of marijuana that Mauzy insinuates, why not cease our discrimination of those who not only do something legal, but are addicted to it also? Obviously Mauzy has nothing against students using other controlled substances. I mean, those help people, too. Methamphetamine (Desoxyn) and amphetamine (Adderall) use is rampant among some students who want the extra edge. Instead of embracing these young go-getters of tomorrow, we shun them with words like "illegal." I mean, two major Canadian cities have zones for people who are addicted to methamphetamines; why can't Tucson realize that drugs are the pathway to tomorrow? I mean, Andrew Weil used marijuana, and didn't that make the world a better place? So I agree with Mauzy's sentiments in that if the UA cannot embrace the failure of society, then perhaps there is no hope for the future after all.

Levi Espinoza
Biochemistry freshman

Sharon has done more for peace than Palestinians

This letter is in response to Kareem Hassounah's letter yesterday suggesting that Sharon is not a man of peace. I found many points in this letter to be very interesting. First and foremost, I was intrigued by the suggestion that the Palestinian people want nothing more than to live decent lives when they have just recently elected into office Hamas, a group that refuses to recognize the right of Israel to even exist. Also, the suggestion that Sharon and Israel want nothing more than "chaos" for their Arab neighbors is truly comical. Sharon, the so-called "war criminal," organized the pullout from the Palestinian territories; the world has recognized this to be the greatest step toward peace that the Middle East has seen.

The reason that peace has been so hard to achieve is because of people constantly looking to the past and being critical rather than working together to change the future. Sharon is a man who will stand out in history as one of the greatest workers for peace; anyone who suggests otherwise is clearly in denial.

Ryan Berlin
Psychology sophomore