Bumper stickers work as parody of arguments

In response to Dillon Fishman's article "Dialogue, not labels, solves problems," I would like to say that he is absolutely right; there is no substitution for real dialogue and educating oneself. I agree that many times bumper stickers, slogans and propaganda are all over-simplified. But some of them are downright hilarious.

I would like to praise the person who made the bumper sticker "Annoy a liberal: Work, Succeed, Be Happy." It's too good! It is the most simple and wonderful retort I've heard. It is a great response to the stickers and buttons such as: "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry," "Anybody but Bush," "FW," "F-- Bush," "Not my President, Not my war." Can they come up with more negative arguments? As for me, I'm going to follow the three-step formula: work, succeed and be happy.

Lisa Dashiell
senior majoring in atmospheric science and Spanish

Rational thought makes professors liberal

In response to Jonathan Riches' opinion that college campuses are too liberal, I would like to offer an explanation. I do not disagree with Jonathan's assessment that a majority of college professors lean to the left. However, I have a more plausible explanation for this

situation. His claim is that the vast majority of the diverse, independent faculty members at all universities just "chose sides." Jonathan then outlines a comical explanation of how this conspiracy is perpetuated: Only people with highly-partisan views are hired as

faculty. Universities are both highly-educated and extremely well-informed communities. You would not be here if you did not agree with that statement. In my humble opinion, the only thing that keeps a university cohesive is the common value ascribed to rational thought and knowledge. I fully believe that it is these common values that tend to lead people at a university toward the political left.

Ben McMorran
physics graduate student

College professors are brilliant, liberal

Mr. Riches claims that 90 percent of the country's most brilliant people - college professors - are liberals. Why does such a disparity exist? Because they're too educated to be conservative.

I'll side with the smart people if I ever have to get off the middle road.

Chris Biagi
atmospheric sciences graduate student

Change in Social Security necessary for future

Matt Gray's discussion of Social Security is flawed in its weighing of the relative risks of the current system and a system allowing some funds to be invested in private accounts. I think that flaw leads him to an erroneous conclusion.

His argument demonstrates a common misperception of the risks of Social Security versus the stock market. Simply put, it ignores the risk of being too conservative. For people entering the workforce today, the average real rate of return in Social Security is predicted to be about 0.8 percent. While the stock market may be volatile in the short term, going back to the 1830s, there has never been a 20-year period with a real rate of return less than 1 percent.

There are other benefits to a private account; primarily that one owns the money outright. While Social Security has some survivor benefits for spouses and dependent minors, a private account may be donated, bequeathed, or otherwise disposed of in any way the owner desires. Under today's system, if you die early, you lose a great deal of Social Security benefits.

Lastly, what is being proposed is not "privatizing" all of Social Security. Under the proposal most often cited from the 2001 bipartisan report, people could voluntarily choose to invest 2 percent of the 7.5 percent that is currently withheld for social security.

The cursory analysis of the relative risks leads Matt to a poor conclusion. The analysis window for the change should be over the next 40 years, and consider how the system stands financially going forward from that point.

For those of us entering, or re-entering, the workforce soon, we will be better off at retirement with the change and the system will be sustainable for our children and their children.

Jim Rodriguez
third-year law student

Asia needed aid long before tsunami hit

The number of people arguing that there should have been a tsunami early warning system in the Indian Ocean, despite the absence of such an event in the past century, amazes me. Many of the hardest hit countries have struggled with AIDS, terrorism, organized crime, corruption, civil war and poverty for years, all without society taking major interest. Who really expected these nations to coordinate and fund an international project like an early warning system? Who was willing to see American dollars and expertise diverted to helping them establish the system? How many of you even knew of Sri Lanka before this disaster?

It is good to see the international community is now providing enormous support for these countries, but at the same time, it's sad that tens of thousands of lives must be lost before we take notice. Trying to point fingers now is pointless, but maybe we can make this the wakeup call we've needed.

Thank you to the many that always fought for aiding developing and struggling nations. But to those of you whose voices pop up only after the fact, please try to remember that these countries did, in fact, exist prior to their debut on the 6 o'clock news.

Will Casson
journalism freshman

Wildcat football uniforms should include red jerseys

Arizona's football team will be one to reckon with incoming years. Coach Stoops is on the right recruiting path to success. Why, though, does the uniform have to be basically navy and white? Where is the red? Navy and cardinal can be combined to create striking uniforms. As a former player and coach, I know that uniforms are important to a team's mental edge. Tradition is important also. Let's see the 2005 football Wildcats start a new tradition and add some color to those drab uniforms. Jim Cohen
alumnus

Bush, Martin Luther King Jr. comparison unfair

In response to Dan Post's article, "President Bush no King," I believe that it is both stupid and somewhat offensive to compare the actions of President Bush with the historical deeds of Martin Luther King.

Although I do understand that Post is trying to illustrate the effectiveness of MLK's pacifist approach, it is ignorant to try and speculate if Bush could have used these same actions to resolve the situation in the Middle East. Martin Luther King was rallying for a cause that was just and right, and it is easy to see that his campaign against racism and segregation was noble. Bush faces a completely dissimilar situation in the current war on terrorism. His fight is toward an ambiguous problem that many people fail to acknowledge and understand. Bush must employ extreme measures to combat the war on terrorism because there is no alternate route. Pacifism is hard to employ when the party you are trying to persuade is routinely blowing themselves up and piloting planes into buildings.

Perhaps the terrorists should employ a pacifist route if they wish to gain the sympathy of world, instead of sending women and children to their death in suicide bombings. Until then, Bush will continue to employ whatever means are necessary to serve the best interests of the United States, much like MLK employed the correct measures to serve the best interests of the African-American community. Martin Luther King had his detractors during the Civil Rights Movement, and so will Bush as long as there are people who fail to see the ultimate goal of his actions.

Kyle Booen
molecular and cellular biology junior