Campus disaster drill devoid of any benefit

Missing from the Wildcat account of the disaster preparedness drill was any hint of awareness on the part of the UAPD or the administration of the harm they caused by failing to warn the campus community adequately.

Is it a "success" when crucial midterm exams are canceled five days before the last deadline to drop classes?

Is it a "success" when university employees are subject to arrest for trying to do their jobs? Or, if none of that bothers you, is it a "success" when people learn to expect false alarms from real authorities?

What have we gained by encouraging students and faculty to suspect that unexpected explosions and yellow tape might not be serious? In the event of a real disaster, more people now will think, at least initially, that it's an exercise. What benefit has been gained from this exercise that couldn't have been gained by conducting the exercise with sufficient warning? And how does that benefit outweigh the harm done?

William McCallum

professor, mathematics

Drill should have been announced earier

The drill that they had this Monday on campus was in no way "a success." Students were not informed of the drill being scheduled. Your paper has already printed some of the dorm students' reactions to the drill.

I do not live on campus. I am a 40-year-old returning student and a housewife who lives in another city here in southern Arizona. I commute to school each day and it was truly a waste of time, effort and fuel to get all the way there only to learn that the buildings were being closed for a drill! That is extremely irresponsible of the university on several levels!

The university has no right to decide which drills to have people go through which are going to require such a drastic change in lifestyle or scheduling. The science and medical communities cannot legally force people to do things. And the laws in this state require a landlord to give at least 24 hours notice before coming into a living space to residents in a non-emergency.

The decision to participate should have been voluntary or at least the drill should have been announced far enough in advance for students to find an alternate housing arrangement or place to study. But instead the university seemed to think that it should make the drill "realistic."

The buildings on the campus are a part of the university, however, some of the funding for those buildings comes from tax dollars and tuition money. The students and the general population in the area have a right to know what is happening, when it is happening and why.

If the current mind set of this administration does not change, the only "reality" it will have to learn from will be based on lawsuits and other negative actions taken by angry taxpayers and parents of students.

Michelle Linga

psychology senior

Paris Hilton can do a better job as president

As an alumnus to this school, I now and then visit the Daily Wildcat online, it deeply saddens me to hear that both Michael Moore and Ann Coulter have made or will be making appearances to the UA campus.

Both Moore and Coulter's views are very skewed, exaggerated, and are entirely false. Knowing themselves how influential they can be, how dare they make appearances weeks before election time. This goes to show that Moore and Coulter have no class and dignity.

The American people need to do their research and realize that both George W. Bush and John Kerry are incompetent candidates to lead this country for the next four years. Neither of them are deserving of the title, President of the United States, as they both try to lie and cheat their way into this Office.

I have watched both the presidential and vice-presidential debates and it is pretty funny to see grown men who graduated from top-notch schools and supposedly want to lead this country act like six-year- old kids. Would you want a six-year-old leading this country? I sure don't, so why should you?

I am 23 myself and I believe I am more grown up than all of them. What both liberals and conservatives need to realize is that both of them will drive this country into the ground. I am confident that Paris Hilton could do a much better job than either of the two can.

Ryan Lee

alumnus, 2003

Moore bends facts to suit his needs

This is addressed to Laura Keslar, who I feel is either simply sugarcoating the mass that is Michael Moore, or is truly ignorant of his nature. Thus, Laura, I feel the need to enlighten you.

In your Tuesday column you said that Ann Coulter habitually excludes all other voices by labeling them as traitors or girly boys, as she called the editors of the National Review after they fired her. Yet your very own dear Michael Moore has used the terms "wacko attackos" and "henchmen" to define anyone who critically looks at his work or credibility. Worse than Coulter, he has been fired from many publications, one being Ralph Nader's headquarters. He then accused Nader, who is supposed to be his choice party's leader, of being jealous of him. Surprise, surprise.

Yet your humor amazed me most when you addressed Moore's occasional manipulation of facts. FYI: On Monday Moore told students that 44 million Americans are illiterate. However, he forgot to add that, according to the National Adult Literacy Survey, from which he got his 44 million figure, 25 percent were immigrants who either couldn't speak or read English, 26 percent had physical, mental or health conditions that kept them from participating fully in work, school, housework or other activities, and 19 percent had visual difficulties that affect their ability to read print, or in other words, they were blind.

When you add these figures up and subtract from the original 44 million, you only get approximately 13.2 million, almost four times less than his original projected number.

Now if you add together all the cities he has and will be speaking at, trusting he will be using this same information, he will have manipulated facts 60 times within less than a month. My friend, occasional is not the word to be used.

Adrienne Alvarez

journalism and communication sophomore

Immaturity shown at Moore speech

In Tuesday's article about Michael Moore's visit, there was a quote that said, "I thought (the Republicans) were immature and I don't think Democrats would go to their speakers and do that."

While this is an interesting insight, I find it to be quite false. After speaking with a College Republican, I discovered that many hateful acts were shown by some of the Michael Moore supporters. He had smoke blown in his face, ice water thrown at him, and somebody even had the audacity to spit on him. All this was simply brought on by the fact that he was holding a Bush/Cheney sign.

Similar acts also occurred during Teresa Heinz-Kerry's visit. To add to this, there were 1,720 arrests made at the Republican National Convention, whereas there were only six made at the Democratic National Convention.

This is obviously a very heated debate, and both parties are very passionate about what they believe in. I am not trying to imply that all Republicans are perfect, but it is unfair to say that the Democrats wouldn't act immaturely and protest a conservative speaker.

Just wait and see what happens when Ann Coulter comes.

Sarah Zrmack

retailing and consumer science junior

Moore's profanity, anger uncalled for

For one reason or another, I found time after work to drag myself to the Michael Moore event. When Mike finally came out (20 minutes late) he was greeted by mainly Democratic fans.

However, there was a large group of about 250-350 Republicans that he was not accounting for. If you did not think that his shell can be cracked by some conservatives, you're certainly wrong. At one point, Moore turned to the Republican audience and said, "Shut the f*** up!" in response to the chanting of "Four more years." Much applause came from the stands, but is that the behavior that should be allowed from our paid speakers?

I went, like many other people, to see a different viewpoint or just to hear what he had to say because I knew it was going to be the hot topic tomorrow. What I did not want to hear or pay to hear was unnecessary profanity. Unless the ASUA condones his actions, I call on them to submit a fine in which he will not receive the full amount of his $27,500 paycheck.

That night I went with an empty, open mind and left the same way. The only thing I was able to take from Moore is that he hates Bush, thinks you should too, and that we all should go vote for Kerry.

If he was trying to make a convincing speech or to convert listeners, he should have one important thing - facts. I know that there was not one person in that audience who actually learned something last night, and wasn't that the whole idea of ASUA bringing him to campus to educate voters? I do not know about you, but I sure want my five dollars back.

Alex Castillo

undeclared freshman

Republicans shame UA at Moore speech

I would like to thank the few rowdy Republicans who appeared at Michael Moore's speech on Monday. You let your voice be heard at a political forum that was obviously set to stir controversy and opinion. You should feel a sense of pride and accomplishment after your performance Monday.

Thank you for disrupting what was an amazing speech that more than 14,000 people paid to hear. I'm aware of your ridiculous complaints that there is not a counterpart to represent the uglier side of this bipartisan debate of Kerry vs. Bush, but how dare you interrupt Moore's speech?

You shamed our university with your behavior. You didn't acquire any converts with your attitude. And your unruly technique of "speaking your mind" simply proved your ignorance. Thank you, Republicans, for helping me further realize why I am proud to be a Democrat.

Victoria Harben

journalism freshman

Wildcat opinion section too biased

This letter is in response to the overwhelming amount of columns, articles and letters that are intended to influence the vote of the student body. I completely support the concept of using the Wildcat as a forum for political debate, however, as of late, student letters and staff columns have presented speculative opinions that bear a significantly negative connotation towards a particular party or candidate. The Wildcat should not be used as a vehicle to promote one's own political agenda, rather a medium that affords students the opportunity to educate themselves on both sides of an issue.

Journalism at its finest presents evidence and factually-based arguments that allow the reader to develop a viewpoint that may or may not be consistent with that of the authors. Articles and letters found in the Daily Wildcat do not follow this standard. The consistency with which columnists present partisan arguments and negative attacks on candidates is unfounded as each day readers of the Wildcat are subject to an Opinions page that has been hijacked by writers who wish to do no more than impose their political views on the student body.

This goes for both sides of the spectrum. Both parties and their respective organizations on campus are guilty of attempting to manipulate student media for their own political gain. Specifically, personal attacks on candidates are unwarranted and only demonstrate the lack of confidence one has in their chosen candidate.

Columns, articles and letters that present political attacks jeopardize the journalistic integrity of the Wildcat, and it is up to the editorial staff to present opinions that are both substantiated and positive in relation to politics and the presidential election. Articles published in the Wildcat should not be personally biased, but should encourage students to individually formulate rational and educated political opinions.

Steve Travis

public management & policy freshman