Frat supporters should give support, not attacks

After reading the opinions section of the Daily Wildcat I have noticed a few things. Max Kellogg said, "The Daily Wildcat is not supposed to publish anything that is considered a personal attack." In my honest opinion, some of these letters in response to Mr. Deininger are guilty of being "personal attacks." Mr. Deininger did not say that his source stated anything about homosexual transmission of the diseases. He is also stated that he is not a homophobe, which everyone has claimed him to be.

This topic of a homosexual frat at the UA is highly controversial. However, all I have read the past few days are about proposing a gay fraternity and attacking Mr. Deininger. How about some supporting arguments? I'm very sure many people share Mr. Deininger's opinion about a gay frat. I believe that having a gay frat on campus would be too controversial to successfully establish right now. Yes this is the 21st century (I can count), and yes, it may have its pros. However, it will have many cons to go along with it as well. Call me a homophobe because I don't agree with all of you, but for those who are willing to listen to both sides before "stereotyping" me, I have nothing against anyone's way of life. It doesn't bother me how one does things as long as they do not force others to conform. I still have the right to my personal opinions and will stand by them until I have indisputable evidence that I am wrong.

While many may have good arguments against Deininger, I see no right for people to personally bash someone for his beliefs on a subject. One is entitled to his own opinion, so please stop personal attacks on Mr. Deininger and argue to the readers why it is a good idea.

Brandon M. Gaumond
undeclared freshman

Opposition to gay frat doesn't stem from hatred

In a follow-up to the letter that I wrote to the Wildcat, I would like to reiterate a few things. First of all, I am aware of some people writing to the editor who support my opinion, yet not one of those letters was published. I'm not sure why this newspaper did not post any of those letters. I'm sure that out of a school of more than 30,000 people, I am not the only one opposed to a gay fraternity. Second, I did say in my letter, "I am in no way against gay people or gay culture," yet people still wrongfully assume I am a homophobe. Although I have spoken out against establishing a gay fraternity that does not mean that I am homophobic. Third, as for the AIDS/HIV comments, I will admit it was a bad example to use because it is a different issue altogether. It was wrong of me to assume that AIDS cases would go up because of a gay frat. That being said, I apologize for the lack of clarity in my letter, as I did not mean to offend those on campus who are homosexual. However, I still do stand by my opinion that a gay fraternity should not be established.

Nick Deininger
communication sophomore

Left-wing McCarthyism runs rampant at UA

Just because Mr. Deininger is against the formation of gay frats does not mean he is hateful, anti-gay or a homophobe. It is possible to both like gay individuals and not support the formation of a gay frat. However, the issue should not be whether Mr. Deininger is a homophobe or not.

If we assume that a gay frat would include a frat house in which roommates exist, Mr. Deininger's claim of increased HIV prevalence is not totally far-fetched.

Imagine a frat in which coed roommates exist. Is it possible that more sex would occur in this situation since sex is unfortunately so casual these days? If you answered "yes," then you cannot call Mr. Deininger a homophobe. More sex simply means a higher risk of HIV infection.

If I don't support the formation of coed fraternity roommates, should I be called a heterophobe?

Finally, I have a question in response to Amber Rice's letter. If any sexually active adult, regardless of orientation, is so well aware of the dangers of unprotected sex, then why are we still talking about the high prevalence of HIV in the United States? It's quite simple - people are still having promiscuous, unprotected sex.

Thomas McFarren
physiological sciences junior

Kolbe's AIDS funding falls short of promise

The action that Student Global AIDS Campaign members took against Rep. Kolbe on Tuesday was to demand support for the Global Fund, the best and most effective international funding mechanism to fight the devastating global AIDS epidemic. There needs to be $1.5 billion for the Global Fund in the upcoming budget cycle for the next fiscal year 2006. The current ask is for $330 million from Congress in emergency money to assure that the Global Fund has enough money for next year because Kolbe and other members of Congress did not allocate enough.

Rob Blair's comments refer to the current fiscal year where the Untied States cut $88 million because other countries did not donate "in time." Our demonstration was about different funding for the upcoming fiscal year, where Kolbe initially agreed to allocate $400 million but two weeks ago only allocated $250 million, a $150 million dollar difference. There is $100 million from the Labor, Health, Human Services and Education committee, making the total for the fiscal year $350 million. Keep in mind that the United States' fair share of funding is actually $1.2 billion.

Congress recommended $2.9 million for AIDS programs in 2005, but these programs are largely abstinence-only and based in ideology and not science.

PEPFAR is one such program that believes in abstinence-only prevention, requires expensive non-generic drugs, is only active in 15 countries, and has 30 percent in overhead costs. In contrast, the Global Fund has science-based prevention programs, allows the use of cost-effective quality generic drugs, is active in over 128 countries and has only 3 percent in overhead costs, meaning that most money goes to the people who truly need it. Also, the Global Fund does not implement programs directly, but allows each individual country to determine what its needs are and how money should be spent, while being held accountable for every penny.

The global AIDS epidemic claims 8,500 lives every day. There has never been an epidemic as large as HIV/AIDS that will destroy lives, communities, countries and society. Our criticism is directed at the right target: Rep. Kolbe because he is chairman of the House Foreign Operations Committee and has the power to stop the epidemic at home and abroad by fully funding the U.S.'s fair share for the Global Fund. Alex Dong
molecular and cellular biology senior

Tasers invaluable tools for officers

With all of the comments about Tasers in the Wednesday Wildcat, I figure the UA community should get a viewpoint from someone who actually knows something about them.

I am a deputy sheriff for in a very rural county in western Arizona. I work a district of 1,800 square miles by myself. If I am lucky, backup will be about 10 minutes away. However, it's normally more than 30 minutes out. I am trained in and was issued the new Taser X-26.

Every officer who is trained in a Taser is required to be shocked with that Taser, myself included. We know what it feels like and what it does. Columnist Ryan Johnson is completely wrong; no deaths have been directly linked to the Taser. Some have died, but their causes of death were mainly attributed to drugs, the Taser only may have been a contributing factor. The Tasers save many more lives of bad guys.

The first deployment of the Taser X-26 by my agency was against a man who was threatening a Deputy with a knife. If not for the Taser, he would have been shot and killed by the Deputy in that case. Another deployment was against a man who was attempting to take his own life with a shard of glass against his neck. In both cases, the suspect would have been killed if not for the Taser. In a third deployment, a man who was drunk attempting to fight the deputy was shocked with the Taser. Had the Taser not been an option, the suspect would have been subdued by use of fists, batons and/or pepper spray (which is far worse than a Taser shock - take it from someone who has experienced both).

The Taser is one of the best things to happen to law enforcement in a long time. Two lives have been saved in my small county with my small department alone.

In closing, Mr. Johnson should visit Taser's Web site for full disclosure on all information about the tool, which he says is "not available to the public." Or he can ask any police officer he sees with a Taser on their belt.

Anthony W. Nelson
UA alumnus

Public cannot be trusted with Tasers

In reading the editorial section regarding Tasers for consumer use, I was very concerned that every single commentary completely missed the point - it isn't safe for our police officers when the Tasers are available to the public. As a wife, daughter and niece of police officers, I see disastrous potential for the safety for law enforcement.

Taser products render the user completely incapacitated, causing them to fall the ground instantly and unable to use any method of defense while a "cycle" is being administered. This is an extremely effective and non-injurious tool (despite commentary to the contrary) for law enforcement to incapacitate the aggressor long enough to secure the person. However, this tool in the hands of criminals may prove deadly to those who are protecting our streets.

Personnel who are struck with a Taser will be defenseless against their attacker (including terrorists, i.e. hijacking a plane, stealing a police car, etc.).

While I certainly see a need for self-defense, I believe there are a number of other products available for those in need. However, these products are less likely to threaten the life of law enforcement or security personnel. But a Taser, shot indiscreetly into an officer from behind, may prove to be even more detrimental than a bullet. Tasers should be kept in the hands of those who will use them safely.

On a side note, the information that the commentators cite is based off flimsy evidence that is more rumor than fact; ignoring other key information with a stronger statistical basis. I request a more complete review of your information (and a variety of opinions) in the future.

Kate Lawson
public administration master's student

Likins disturbed by dissent, confuses facts

I would like to respond to President Likins' letter in Monday's Wildcat. First, I find it amusing that our university president gives credit for Ann Coulter's UA appearance to ASUA, the same group that agreed to help pay for the venue only to back out two days later fearing they wouldn't receive enough recognition for their contribution. Well, now they were the only ones involved, according to President Likins! The fact is, ASUA had absolutely nothing to do with her appearance and it was solely put together by the College Republicans, who believe both sides should have an equal platform. I find it troubling that President Likins doesn't know who was involved in bringing Ms. Coulter to UA.

I also think it is interesting that President Likins finds political discourse in the form of e-mails and phone calls to his office as "deeply disturbing." This is a pretty good attitude to have in a democracy. What should people do when they don't agree with the direction their university is taking, President Likins? Should they sit around and talk amongst themselves or take action? I would opt for the latter choice. The fact that these people took time out of their busy days to contact you shows that they were upset that something like this could happen, and many of them have pledged to stop donating to the university. Maybe all this could have been avoided if more of your outrageous salary (more than the president of the United States makes, by the way) would go to ensuring that both sides are heard and equally represented on our campus. Pete Seat
theatre arts senior