Support president on social security reform

Mr. Fishman seems to think that the president is fabricating this story on the need to reform Social Security. He states that non-partisan groups agree that there is no threat to the system until the year 2042. Well by the year 2042, myself and many other people at this university will be of the age to receive social security benefits. If the system has failed us by then, that is a serious problem for me. If the Social Security system is only able to pay out 70% of what it should, that is a failure. We need to start thinking about the future and realize that we have to fix situations before they become serious problems because then it is too late. By giving me a personal retirement account, as the president proposes, I have control over my money and as long as I work hard throughout my life, I will be guaranteed money when I retire, regardless of what the government does in that time. If I start putting money in that account after I graduate, money that would otherwise be taken from me and put into the Social Security system, I will have a substantially higher amount of money than anything Social Security could provide to me when I retire. I know where my money is and I know it is being used for my future and for my children's future and no one can take that away. Why sit and hope that there will be benefits for you when it comes time to retire when you could be investing in yourself every year. We should show support for the president's plan to let us keep our own money and invest in our own future.

Nick Sexton
pre-business freshman

U.S. motivated by money in Iraq

For a moment, I couldn't determine if Mike Dickerson's Jan. 31 letter was satirical or not. I'm not so sure I need to rethink my position on the Iraq invasion, which killed more than 100,000 innocent people and was propounded by sanctions that killed an additional 500,000-plus infants because they were denied access to such luxuries as potable water.

I concur that the elections will enable the "advancement" of U.S. foreign policy but tell me, when has U.S. foreign policy ever really been about establishing democracies instead of protecting or creating a profit? To the contrary, the U.S. has a long history of silencing democracy in the name of the almighty dollar.

The people of Iran, El Salvador, Guatemala and Chile have all had the misfortune of electing leaders who put the needs of their people above the profits of U.S. industry, with traumatic results. Even our own revolution was based more upon a handful of rich old men tired of giving the king his due than the democratic ideals they espoused in rhetoric.

You may even recall that the U.S. was initially reluctant to hold elections in Iraq, instead preferring a convoluted caucus system. The Iraqi people have elected an assembly to begin the process of building a government. However, much like our Congress, this assembly will be assaulted by well-moneyed interest groups, the 800lb gorilla of which is the U.S. The architects of the invasion are largely businessmen (Perle, Cheney, Bush, etc.). It would be naive to assume they don't expect a return on such a substantial investment.

Christopher Haney
environmental microbiology graduate student

Student section needed, but so is money

I'm writing in regards to the age-old story of creating a student section at men's basketball games in McKale Center. I think that a student section is long overdue and would be an outstanding addition to one of the best on-campus arenas in America. But there's a problem that none of the students seem to realize. Plain and simple, Arizona Athletics could never withstand the loss of the money from the lower bowl seats that currently go to donors. News flash - The people in those seats pay five times as much per game than the students. And although the students believe that they should be the number one priority of the university, that's not the way reality works. In financial terms, football and men's basketball are the two sports that pay for the other 17 sports at the UA. Take away any of the revenue from those sports and teams like swimming or gymnastics or track will suffer. So, students, take a deep breath and realize that the student section in McKale Center is still a few years away. Want to help the cause?

Well, its been noted many times that the giving rate for alums at UA is one of the worst in the Pac-10. After you graduate, buy football season tickets and give to your alma mater. And maybe 6 or 7 years from now, future Wildcats will be able to flourish in a student section in McKale Center.

Damian Areyan
2000 alumnus

Anti-abortion views not "outmoded" or "hateful"

This letter is in response to Matthew Montgomery's letter in Friday's Wildcat. It would appear that Mr. Montgomery did not understand what Annie McIntyre was saying in her letter. She was arguing that abortion is wrong, in any situation, but that it is more prone to occur outside of wedlock.

Most of us that are pro-life feel, as McIntyre expressed, that the unborn child also has a claim to life, and that that claim is ignored when that child is murdered by abortion. Contrary to Mr. Montgomery's Ad Hominems, this idea is not "outmoded" nor is it "hateful." Rather it is fully consistent with the Bible, both the Hebrew and Christian texts.

Finally, the notion of illegitimate pregnancies is not dead today as Mr.

Montgomery's use of the term, and its use in the public discourse, clearly shows.

Silas Montgomery
judaic studies senior

Porn forces women to compare themselves to "perfect" women

The letter from Chad, stating that porn "provides valuable service" was rather amusing. In fact, ironically enough, it only made it quite clear that it has been of NO service to him in his life!!

It's quite clear he knows nothing of women. There is nothing about being compared to some "perfect" female that does anything to boost the esteem of women.

The women in these porn movies (or even regular TV shows, big screen movies, magazine ads, etc., etc.) have 20 people working on their appearance. They have makeup experts, people doing their clothing, hair, choosing the proper colors, the lighting, the posing - all of this intended to make the female look absolutely perfect, with not ONE flaw.

The average woman looks at these females presented before her, and sees that there is NO WAY that she can ever compare to this perfection. The average man looks at them, and begins to expect that the women in "real life" should look like this as well, and is dissatisfied if they don't.

It's no wonder that even pre-teen girls are starting to develop eating disorders, trying to look like these impossible "models" of femaleness. And isn't that pathetic, that at so young an age, they allow someone else to tell them what they need to look like, to be "sexy"?

If someone is so desperate for "ideas" or how to "get the fire started," communication with the partner has always been most effective for that!!

But if he's having sex with people he "doesn't even love", that would explain why he has a problem with that concept - one doesn't "communicate" with someone who is merely an object for one's lust.

While having sex may be a physical release, it can hardly be considered contributing to physical or emotional well-being if it occurs in a coupling that doesn't even involve a real relationship with the other person.

Another problem with porn is that it takes no guts!! The "imaginary women" seen in these videos or pictures are always doing exactly what the man wants, all the time.

In real life, couples must spend a great deal of time, working through differences, and communicating with each other about wants or needs. And being concerned about what the other person desires, and how they feel - all of which takes effort, and is NOT perfect - is how a good sexual relationship develops, and true benefit is received for both partners.

I can't help feeling sorry for someone who has never had one of these relationships - which is why they would find it so much easier to relate to the "perfect fantasies" in porn, which take no effort at all, but have no relation to how things work in "real life". Continuing to immerse themselves in these seductive media just makes it more likely they will prefer the artificial relationships to real ones - and does absolutely nothing to prepare them for a "real" sexual relationship, which involves give and take between two real, and therefore flawed, human beings.

And THAT is the real danger of pornography!!!

Valerie J Smith
Graduate student

Comments show division in country

Mrs. Annie McIntyre's comments in the Feb. 2 edition of the Wildcat are proof of how divided this country has become under the tyrannous rule of Dubbya. In her bitter rant she successfully mocked any woman who chooses what is best for her life, mocked any victim of rape, and mocked those with STDs - all in the name of morality! Mrs. McIntyre, like most of the conservative right in this country, placed her own moral values upon the lives of others. Is it not the Republican Party's philosophy to limit the power that the government possesses over its citizens? And is it not now most of the Republican Party's agenda to try to invade women's private lives in order to flex its moral muscle and attempt to take away the female citizen's power of choice? AND is it not the conservative right who wants to cut taxes and thus funding for Medicaid and other social benefits for mothers and children in this country? I say to Mrs. McIntyre and the conservative right, either alter your rhetoric so that you stay out of ALL citizen's lives and keep your money, or practice what you preach!

Separation between church and state is provided to each person in the country under the First Amendment. So, separate your church from the state that we all share.

Alisha Gibson
history and women's studies sophmore

Letter doesn't have facts behind pregnancy

I am sure that I am one of the hundreds of UA students and alumni who unfortunately read Miss McIntyre s illogical, unsound and overtly right-wing Christian article. Instead of trying to impress my own personal beliefs on Rapture-ready people such as Annie, I just want to point out some of the glaring wrong statements that she contended. Although I am not fresh out of bible camp, I truly think that she is in no place to condemn those who have completed, sought out, or even pondered the notion of having an abortion as a means of birth control.

First off, according to a 2002 study by Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo, of Arizona State University, and Dr. Henry P. David, of Transitional Family Research Institute, unintended and unwanted childbearing can have negative health, social and psychological consequences. Health problems include greater chances for illness and death for both mother and child. In addition, such childbearing has been linked with a variety of social problems, including divorce, poverty, child abuse and juvenile delinquency. Thus, their conclusion was that abortion serves as a means to control unwanted and unintended childbirth which consequently prevents problems such as poor economic situations for the mother, disadvantaged youths for the unintended child, and social delinquency which the child is more statistically likely to engage in during their adolescence.

Secondly, just because informed consent is a law, it was not specifically enacted so that pregnant women seeking abortions would have a greater amount of time to ponder their decision of whether to murder the child. Informed consent simply derives from the ethical and legal obligation of the doctor to well inform his patient of as to what is of concern to their welfare and health.

Thirdly, abstinence is the best means of birth control. In fact Miss McIntyre you are correct, it is 100 percent effective. But let us be realistic. Today 75 percent of single young women are engaging in premarital sex. Therefore, wouldn't it seem wise to promote alternative means to combat a situation that we all know is occurring? Although I know that your church-going friends mock the majority of us college students who cannot keep our legs closed, sex happens; welcome to 2005. Therefore we have derived means of birth control, such as a condom or the pill. Women who are on the pill are guaranteed to be 98 percent safe, even with human error. That seems to be a pretty good statistic, which I am sure the majority of UA college girls are aware of and most likely using.

Joseph Brown
psychology senior

"Sexual immorality" misunderstood

On Wednesday, Annie McIntyre wrote a letter to the Wildcat in which she chastised the paper for covering a pro-choice rally. She even went so far as to say that women who exercise their right to choose are "sexually immoral."

Sexually immoral? She even links "sexual immorality" to suicide.

Sadly, Annie McIntyre is so mistaken as to make it almost laughable.

I challenge her and her ilk to define "sexual immorality."

Is it pre-marital sex? Because in the Bible that occurs a lot.

Abraham even practiced it.Is it oral sex? Can't get preggers that way.

Is it any sexual contact? Well, then she has condemned 99 percent of her fellow students as "sexually immoral".

Humans are sexual creatures. We have sex. We do it a LOT! More than any other mammal in fact! But apparently this is wrong! Nature or God, or whomever she believes in, is playing an evil joke on us! Giving us a strong sex drive and then making it immoral. What kind of jerk would do that?

Guess what Annie ... PEOPLE HAVE SEX!

They had sex in 3,000 B.C. They had sex in the 1950s. Hell, Strom Thurmond, a HUGE anti-choice advocate couldn't resist his primal urges and managed to father a bastard child with his black housekeeper (whom he ironically thought shouldn't be allowed to vote. ... I guess she was good enough to bed, but not good enough to have the same rights as whites.) Jimmy Swaggart, another of her kind, paid hookers to have sex with him! The fact is everyone has those dirty little thoughts. Those sweaty nights alone in bed. Those furtive gropes late at night while on a date. It is what makes us human!

And until people like Ms. McIntyre realize that, we will see more teen pregnancy, more abortions and more pain in this nation.

Robert Kennedy
photography senior

Humans pleasing each other innocuous

Matthew Rubach's letter against pornography is very good at making assertions, but less good at providing support. He has a pretty fishy Kantian notion of "intrinsic dignity" taken on board without argument and then blindly applied to pornography. But such notions should be handled with due care, as otherwise you end up with absurd conclusions - even Kant ended up condemning masturbation as "carnal self-defilement." Rubach also throws around "the personalistic norm" as if it were a magic word, capable of enchanting one's opponents into agreement. But don't worry, the term is just a Catholic buzzword coined by Karol Wojtyla, and (despite rumors to the contrary) being the Pope doesn't automatically make you a moral authority. And of course there is bizarre pre-Darwinian teleology at work: love "rooted in the personalistic norm" is "the love our nature yearns for," and the only "real sex" is "an expression of self-giving love" (though it's unclear why the penis has to go in - why not just a hug?). The question of why anyone should take any of this the least bit seriously is left unexamined.

In any case, using each other for pleasure sure looks like one of the most innocuous and agreeable things human adults can do to each other, as long as everyone's enjoying themselves, everyone's giving their full consent, and no one's deceiving or emotionally manipulating each other. This goes for orgies, it goes for massages, it goes for foot rubs. Sure, people should see each other as equals, worthy of basic courtesy and respect, but I see no conflict between this minimal kind of dignity and people using each other for pleasure. And so, while real-world pornography might (sometimes or often) involve awful things like coercion, deception, subordination and hopelessness, I can't imagine what's wrong with pornography in and of itself.

Cole Mitchell
philosophy graduate student

Iraq leaves many questions unanswered

I was just wondering, how come someone can take the principals of freedom and democracy and twist them to serve their own ends? Is what has been happening in Iraq the right way to build a relationship with another country? Does anyone really care about the soldiers who fight, live and die? Or is their fate balanced by how much we gain? What has happened to the use of wisdom in power? Where are the responsibilities and morals of being a leader of this world? Is it greed that has pushed some to use their power as a tool to serve their selfishness while pretending to free the world? The Iraqi people are making choices, but they are based on the goals of American democracy, not on the Middle Eastern culture. Can't some use the knowledge of the 21st century to solve a people problem rather than seeking a new planet to find a good reason to get out of what we are in? Where are the scientists, scholars and wise people? Why don't you talk? Why this silence, and for how long? Don't some realize that there is an end to this life? Why is it some care about Princess Diana and her son while others do not care about a child who is left alone? Do Americans care more about taxes than someone's life? What is the meaning of life if you trade off your happiness with the sadness of someone else? Do we want a poker game to be a zero sum or a win-win game? Why don't we think as one village in a tiny place? By these words, I am trying to give you something to think about rather than worrying about your own future.

Mubarak Alruwaie
management information systems senior

Porn not perfect, but shouldn't be prohibited

This is more of a reply to those that spoke out against the pornography article in last week's Wildcat. The two arguments included the word "beautiful" and "marriage" as descriptions of sex and when it should be done. Sex is only beautiful in the process of reproduction; otherwise, it is for pleasure. And yes, conventional theory is that sex should be performed only after marriage, but we are in no kind of conventional society and the fact is that the average age of a person having sex for the first time is nearly entering the pre-teen segment. Yes, porn is disgusting. We all know that. That is why people usually turn it off after they are "done" being aroused. But it does arouse us and, well, we look for pleasure in everything we do. Why not have something that we know is a guaranteed pleasure? As for the degradation of people, this is true, but no one is being forced into the porn industry; they choose to do this either for monetary purposes or pleasure. Everyone chooses a profession, and that happens to be the one they choose. It is not right for others to judge like that. What if they enjoy what they do? There are so many things wrong in society and this may just be another one of them, but it is not something that is totally dehumanizing if the masses agree that they like it. Sex, by the way, is not the consummation of a relationship. It may be in Hollywood, but in real life, it is an act to pleasure both parties (or more, if you're into that kind of thing) unless being done specifically for the purpose of reproducing. Just like Hollywood provides us with entertainment, the porn industry does the same. I'm sure you guys have watched porn and done what everyone else does in reaction to it - either mock it or enjoy it. What we have is free will. Let people do what they want as long as it is within the boundaries of the law. Porn is. People choose it, and it isn't someone else's right to prohibit it.

Sanjay Kumar
pre-business freshman