Non-residents can't vote in AZ elections

On Thursday, a professor of mine passed out voter registration forms to a full Social Sciences auditorium. While this in and of itself encourages participation in the political process is a good thing it was what she said while distributing them that was disconcerting. She claimed that even if a student was a resident of another state they could still vote in Arizona.

While there is still a question of whether or not it is legal for out-of-state students or temporary residents to register to vote in Arizona, as a true Arizona resident I find it offensive when people who have no intention of living here want to take part in deciding the future of this state.

Presidential and partisan politics aside, Arizonans should be more concerned about non-residents registering to vote here in what truly amounts to voter fraud.

I strongly encourage out-of-state students to request absentee ballots from their permanent homes. They have the right and a duty to participate in the political process, just not in this state.

And if any of these students genuinely plan on living here after graduation, then they should definitely register to vote here, and I welcome them. It's a great place to live.

I am not out to vilify out-of-state students. They bring in different perspectives and cultures, are a boon to the local economy, and let's not forget the extra tuition they pay. They are guests and have many rights, but voting in an Arizona election is not one of them. Tim Lake
marketing junior

Bush's 'facts' not entirely accurate

As I watched the first debate on Thursday as a Kerry supporter, I noticed Bush had some impressive facts and statistics that he shared with the nation.

For instance, the fact that 10 million Afghans were registered for the upcoming election. This sounds impressive, though it's too bad it's not necessarily accurate. Ten million registrations have been turned in, yet a lot of people have registered twice, three or even more times so far. In addition to this, the election has been postponed three times since the small amount of U.S. forces hardly has any control of the country outside of Kabul.

Next to Iraq, where President Bush claims 100,000 troops or police have been trained with an additional 25,000 by the end of the year. Again, an impressive fact if it was true. The Pentagon reports 8,000 police have had a full regimen of training, while other police units have joined with other Iraqis to form an ever-growing force of insurgents.

One of my favorite distortions is the issue of the $87 billion vote for the troops. Bush claims Kerry is a flip-flopper, yet the joke is meant to hide the greed of the current administration.

Yet, Kerry voted for $67 billion dollars to go to our troops while opposing an additional $20 billion in pork for wealthy defense corporations and especially Halliburton, a company that still pays the vice president an exorbitant amount of money for being a former CEO.

When Congress wanted to give the $67 billion to the troops without all of the money for greedy corporations, Bush threatened to veto the bill. Many Republicans gave in but Democrats like John Kerry stood up for his principles and voted against the money eventually given to Halliburton.

There are more inaccuracies that have been noted in Bush's remarks, but the Wildcat is only so many pages long.

Josh Silverstein
political science and history senior

If Kerry elected, American people will be in danger

They say that Sen. John Kerry is in support of making allies to win peace, but during the presidential debate, Kerry stated that talks with North Korea should be bilateral and is against support from China. He also makes unclear statements about Russia and degrades the countries currently working with the United States.

If Senator Kerry wins this election, the United States and the American people will be in more danger than ever before. The United States is not fighting this war, and more countries will step up for the free world.

Since Sept 11, 2001, there have been suicide attacks in many other countries like Spain and Russia. These terrorists are not just attacking Americans but anyone unlike themselves. They are believers in genocide and death.

The war on terror is bigger than any war of times past. We are not fighting a nation; we are fighting terrorists across the world that plan on killing innocent people. These terrorists are the number one threat to not just Americans, but to every being in the entire world. This is a global war in which all free and willing nations will come together and be victorious.

Anthony Simonovich
animal sciences sophomore

Kerry finally crystallizes message during debate

Watching the presidential debate Thursday, I was happy to see a strong, concise and organized John Kerry. Finally he has crystallized his message, his responses were measured, logical and actually answered the questions posed. Further, he took responsibility for his past and his record, something George Bush has a very hard time doing.

The part of this debate that was surprising (although I suppose it shouldn't have been) was Bush's complete lack of anything resembling extemporaneous speech. This is a man wanting to run our country for another four years, and he seems to have done little or no preparation at all for this debate. I have grave reservations about the efficacy of Bush and Cheney for another four years.

If the president cannot even mount a coherent response that incorporates the issues of the debate then how is he supposed to be effective in a cohesive coordinated attack on terrorism?

Eli Trainer
anthropology senior

UA administration not friendly towards students

While it is understood that President Peter Likins wants to "focus excellence" in specific departments here at the UA, it does not give him the right to undermine an established department.

How can he justify stripping a department, either completely or financially, as equal treatment to students in the university? Humanities classes challenge students, whatever their degree may be, to develop solid cognitive processes that would significantly aid them in whatever career they choose.

It is not fair nor equal to take that option away from students who may appreciate humanitarian classes; is it fair to force those who are already enrolled in humanities to change their career plans (at the worst), or to force them to find another university that offers these most basic courses?

The UA administration is making a foolish error, without regards as to the true outcomes of their choices. How can we learn to progress if we don't know where we come from?

Perhaps the administration has a skewed perception of "focused excellence," and they should take into consideration what the students want, not what a select few want. After all, the administration is here to aid the students, is it not?

Actions prove more than words, and their actions recently have proven otherwise. Perhaps it would be better for student to find a more student-friendly university than subjugate themselves to this.

Matt Winter
anthropology and classics sophomore

Mandatory UA meal plans unfairly limit food choices

I am writing in response to the Thursday article "Meal plan could be mandatory next year." I object in principle to the idea of a mandatory meal plan, because it unfairly restricts students' choice of what and where to eat. Even though the freshmen would not be physically prevented from leaving campus to eat a meal or buy groceries, a mandatory meal plan constitutes financial coercion: Freshmen would feel pressured to buy food at the student union, lest they waste the money that they had been forced to pay.

This would be particularly unfair for students with special dietary needs, because on-campus eateries do not provide many options for atypical diets. For instance, I have been moving toward a vegan diet (no meat, eggs, dairy or other animal products) for ethical reasons, and I can think of fewer than a dozen vegan options that are regularly available in the Student Union Memorial Center. I can only assume that the options are similarly limited for students with dietary needs based on religion or on health.

Melissa Haferkamp
philosophy senior

A mandatory meal plan only encourages fast food

The UA has been undergoing many changes since I arrived here four years ago as a freshman. I understand the need to reform policies, cut classes and focus on changing for the better.

Yet the proposed mandatory freshman meal plan is an appalling suggestion. As a freshman in the health education program I was shocked at the lack of healthy food choices at the union. More than half of the food choices are fast food, and the remaining choices still have much to be desired. Having to eat more than twice a day on campus and find healthy options is near impossible.

In an attempt to eat well, I ordered a large side of vegetables for dinner. Delighted with my healthy choice, I sat down to eat and found that the vegetables were saturated in butter. Fried chicken would have been better for me.

How would mandating freshmen to be subjected to the food at the union make them eat right? If anything, a mandatory food plan would encourage fast food rather than deter it. Further, how many times can you expect someone to eat at Panda Express? With more than 160 days in the school year, with two meals a day, could you really ask anyone to limit themselves to the union for 320-plus meals?

Crystal Schemp
public health masters student

Michael Moore not worth the price of admission

As a struggling college student, how would I like to spend a hard-earned 15 bucks? To pay for my tuition? Sounds like a good plan.

To pay for my school books? Another good idea.

To pay for gas? Of course.

To pay for Michael Moore to spew his lies and Bush hatred into the ears of innocent and ignorant potential voters? Definitely not!

A visit from Michael Moore is not worth $27,000. In fact, it's not worth 27 cents. If ASUA is going take the liberty of spending my money to pollute the student population with Michael Moore's falsehoods, then the least they could do is spend an equal amount getting a conservative figure on campus as well.

I feel sorry for students who go to see a prominent political figure, hoping to learn some valuable information to use in the upcoming election, and instead get Michael Moore. My peers who go into McKale Center knowing nothing about politics will come out knowing even less, and the fact that ASUA is sponsoring this kind of beguiling display is sickening. It is even more disturbing that this is how my money is being spent when I wouldn't touch Michael Moore with a 10-foot pole even if you paid me $27,000.

The bottom line is.. I want my 15 bucks back!!!

Leatrice Nehs
pre-business sophomore