Letter shows U.S. xenophobia, racism

Justin Kunzelman's letter regarding "turning the table on immigration" says all that needs to be said about the xenophobia that seems to brood in our great state of Arizona. The majority is becoming more and more afraid of the diversity that a large portion of our country embraces, a diversity that makes the United States a great place.

Mr. Kunzelman personifies everything that is wrong with the narrow worldview many conservatives have taken regarding immigration; they are so caught up in their warped, ethnocentric view of the world that they fail to recognize the benefits that immigration brings to our nation. With words like, "We need to take back our country," I am afraid that people like Mr. Kunzelman spend more time at Klan meetings than they do trying to broaden their academic horizons.

What a sad, racist state of affairs that has become the status quo in our state.

Andy Gaona
junior majoring in Spanish

Terms in column used incorrectly

This is a response to Jonathan Riches' article titled "Misconceptions reward terrorism." Riches used the terms "Islamist" and "jihad" incorrectly ,which does not help to understand terrorism and unfortunately causes misconceptions about Islam and Muslims. The term "Islam" describes the religion, the term "Muslim" describes the followers, and any word describing something pertaining to Islam is known as "Islamic." Muslims do not generally consider themselves "Islamists." Many people never heard this term until after Sept. 11, 2001. It has negative connotations, causing people to associate all of Muslims with terrorism since the root of the word "Islamists" is "Islam." A proper way to describe a terrorist is either a "terrorist" or an "Islamic terrorist" but not "Islamist."

Additionally, the term "jihad" does not mean "to crash a plane into a building." "Jihad" means to "strive on behalf of the faith," and Muslims may consider this to be an "inner struggle" or an "outer struggle." The 1.3 billion Muslims who are not terrorists do not consider jihad to mean terrorism in the name of Islam.

It is not helpful to anyone for adherents to the world's second-largest religion to have their words redefined by popular media. I would advise people that before using terms having to do with a certain religion to ensure that they will be used correctly.

Last, but not least, for those who sincerely want to learn about what Muslims in the Middle East think about the United States to take a trip to the Middle East and meet the people versus simply believing the useless and incorrect verbiage heard on TV or read in the newspaper.

Eric Austin
engineering and physics sophomore

Where were protests against Clinton?

Alan Fullmer suggests that protesters are the only Americans with the courage to stand up against a war president. If this is the case, and these protesters are truly standing up against a man who jumped into an unjust war, where were these same protesters when Clinton invaded Bosnia? Bosnia was invaded on many of the same principles used by Bush. Human rights violations, oppression and the threat of a larger war (similar to Bush's worries of future terrorist attacks) were all included in Clinton's rationale for invading Bosnia. Last I checked, the United States was never attacked by Bosnia. Where were the protests? Or is invading a region without prior attacks justifiable only if the mission is led by your man?

Furthermore, the reason current protests fall on deaf ears, and protests during the Clinton administration didn't occur, is that we Republicans are busy working on our careers and earning a paycheck - that's paycheck, not welfare check. Continue with your protests, it's your right, keep preaching to each other and patting yourselves on the back. When you're prepared to work for a living, and hope to protect your earnings and investments, we'll gladly accept you when you're ready to switch teams.

Brian Danker
UA alumnus

Column lacks facts, research of countries

I am writing about the article entitled "Misconceptions reward terrorism," which was published by your paper Tuesday. It was written by Jonathan Riches.

I found the article very interesting. However its author does not seem to have done his research well. In his article, he lists countries that have violent Islamic groups whose activities have cost some innocent people their lives. If you take a fleeting look at his list, it appears that what the author has done, instead of researching the topic at all, was to identify all the countries where Islam is a major religion and just list them without any regard whether there are indeed such violent groups in those countries.

Take Azerbaijan for instance. It is a fact that this country, in its recent history, has never had any violent incidents initiated by any religious group, Islamic or not. I would urge you to ask Mr. Riches as to where he has obtained the facts according to which it is otherwise in Azerbaijan. I guarantee you that he will fail to produce any concrete source substantiating his claim - his real source is a childish generalization.

Furthermore, what is interesting is that he does not mention Turkey in his list. Does he ever watch CNN?

I am from Azerbaijan, and felt the need to contact you mostly because of the article's title, which mentions the word "misconception." And it is a misconception that all Muslim countries have violent religious group with violent histories. The writer of an article on "misconception" should know better.

Kotrix Aliyev
Azerbaijanian

King could not have supported war

I am writing in response to a letter by Patrick McNamara, who thinks it is outrageous to believe that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would oppose the war in Iraq. When I read Mr. McNamara's letter, I was angered that someone could possibly entertain the thought that Dr. King would support the war. After some thought I cooled off, thanks to how absurd it would be to think that. However, that was tempered by sadness from the thought that there are people that truly believe that, which is why I had to write.

Mr. McNamara contends there is "no earthly way of knowing what King . . . would think about contemporary issues." In fact, we have many earthly ways of knowing what Dr. King would think about contemporary issues. We have hundreds of speeches, sermons and books, which show how deeply he was committed to nonviolence. Most of all, we have the example of how he lived his life, which was to love his enemies. Mr. McNamara also says "the presumption of discerning what a long dead person might have thought are rather weak validations." Are you saying people should not invoke the teachings of Christ or Gandhi when they are making a decision? Because they're dead, yet millions of people look to them for guidance when making decisions. Dr. King did this, the president does, so how is that a weak validation? This was a man of principle, and you have tried to dishonor his memory. To suggest that Dr. King may have supported this war, an aggressive preemptive one, is ridiculous. I implore Mr. McNamara to rethink what it means to stand unequivocally for nonviolence. Go and find Dr. King's work, and look at it very closely (www.infoplease.com/spot/mlkspeeches.html). Then write back, and tell me you honestly believe that Dr. King would have supported this war. I also call on the Wildcat to publish Dr. King's "Beyond Vietnam" speech, and ask anyone to prove he would have supported this war. It can't be done.

Andrew Walanski
UA alumnus

Football uniforms need update, 'sprucing up'

I read with interest Keith Deem's letter regarding the UA's football uniforms' lack of style. While there is no doubt that Cal and Oregon's recent football success have coincided with recent uniform changes, I'm not so sure that those are the only reasons those teams' fortunes have changed for the better; one could argue that with regard to Oregon's, which are simply atrocious, opponents have been frightened by the loud hues of green and yellow coming at them, and perhaps have been shocked into losses.

As for the UA's uniforms, I agree that they could use some sprucing up a bit, but going to the original colors of sage green and silver might be a bit outlandish. I think going back to the very tough-looking block "A" on the white helmet that they wore when I was there in the mid-late '80s would be great. Regarding the stripes from those helmets, I'd either make them both one color, or lose them altogether.

Ray Rafidi
UA alumnus

Organ donors not more deserving than others

I am writing in response to guest columnist David Undis' Tuesday article on organ donation. Organ donation can be a great thing if done for the right reasons and if it helps someone who needs and wants an organ. But Mr. Undis' statement that organs should go first to those who agree to donate their own organs made me think about this on another level. How about we only give blood to the injured who have donated or regularly donate their own blood? Where do we end? Should we get to decide that someone who has agreed to donate their own organs is somehow more ethical or moral and therefore should receive an organ before someone else who will immediately die without an organ transplant? Should we believe that someone who has not agreed to donate organs but is in dire need is somehow not worthy of receiving them before someone who has agreed to donate organs but can live for a while without? Where is the ethics in determining organ recipients based whether or not they agreed to donate their own organs, and thus are deemed to be good and moral (donators) or bad and selfish (non-donators)?

Erin Tucker
renewable natural resource studies graduate student

Articles not cautious enough toward porn

Caitlin Hall and Kylee Dawson present some interesting facts and arguments in the Wildcat's LiveCulture section on pornography. However, they both seem to ignore many of the serious social and health related issues that surround the porn industry and many of its most devoted consumers.

Foremost among the issues for consumers of porn, is the accelerating rate of pornography addiction in the United States. Although many see this addiction as something of a joke, those afflicted with it may face life-long struggles with issues concerning intimacy and relationships, or the more serious problem of controlling one's impulse toward sexual deviant behavior.

Another problem that Kylee Dawson alludes to is that children increasingly are exposed to pornography earlier in life. One wonders how common the example of Mr. Norwood is, who at the age of 8 was first exposed to pornography, and by 20 is a full-blown porn addict? Common sense dictates that premature exposure to sexually explicit material can be immensely damaging to children.

But what of those who make pornography, primarily the female "actors" of the industry? Never one to wantonly assign victim status to whole groups of people, I would like to see surveys and studies relating to the rates of drug addiction, AIDS infection, suicide, and other instances of death due to unnatural cause among this group. One needn't go too far out on a limb to discern that porn "actors" are represented disproportionately high in these categories.

All of this ties in with a larger question of values. The pornography phenomenon is simply the most conspicuous example of a pernicious culture of voyeurism that is spreading like a cancer in American society. Another example is the stupefying spectacle of "Reality TV." Proclivities such as these used to be called eavesdropping; now it's called "Art".

Patrick McNamara
journalism senior