Hardy not being a true libertarian

Traditionally, especially at institutions such as universities whose existence depend on open debate and the free exchange of ideas, the answer to obnoxious or disagreeable speech has always been more speech. For example, somebody bothered by the creative liberties Michael Moore took with the truth in "Bowling for Columbine" could publish a book like David Hardy's "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man."

More speech was the only acceptable remedy for anything short of slander and libel, until the enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which Hardy is using as yet another tool in his crusade against Michael Moore.

For those who don't remember, the BCRA is the law better known as the McCain-Feingold Bill, enacted in 2002 as a result of moral panic over things like soft-money loopholes and "sham issue ads" - in other words, over political speech that McCain and others in power saw as undesirable. The idea was that campaign contributions, somehow not protected by the right to free association and not needed to disseminate opinions, were the problem, and that we could be free of corporate cronies and other corrupt politicians if such contributions were restricted and the rights of organizations to weigh in with their opinions during campaign seasons were severely curtailed.

2004 was the first election in which the BCRA was in effect. The only noticeable changes were that issue groups, severely limited by the BCRA, played a smaller role than usual, and that it's become possible to use the law to try to silence people from radio hosts to Michael Moore.

Libertarians, of both the real and "civil" variety, predicted from the start that the BCRA would have a chilling effect on the First Amendment rights to free association and free speech. We were told by America's favorite authoritarian, John McCain, that the bill would do nothing to limit the rights of ordinary citizens, and that it would only limit the role played by moneyed interests. Now that the law is being used to attempt to create a gag rule against universities hosting speakers who, like Michael Moore, may express their opinion on the candidates, it's clear that we were right to be worried.

This isn't to say that there shouldn't be limits on the role colleges and universities play in electoral politics. One action has always been forbidden and should remain so: Using the Academy and state funds to advance some candidates over others, such as when, at McCain's request, Fernando Ascensio of ASUA excluded Libertarian challenger Ernie Hancock from a publicly-funded debate.

If you disagree with David Hardy, Michael Moore or both, or have an opinion on any other issue, the solution is clear: Exercise your rights. Foster a campus environment where speakers from all sides are welcome to present their opinions, and repeal any law, such as the BCRA, that would prevent this or interfere with your ability to support your causes. This can be done using what is, next to free speech, your oldest and most powerful tool to effect political change: the vote. Real election reform will come when the dishonest politicians who voted for the BCRA, starting with John McCain, are thrown out of office.

Ben Kalafut
physics graduate student

Register for organ donation today

Currently, more than 87,000 people are waiting for the gift of life.

Each day, about 70 people receive an organ transplant. However, 16 people die each day waiting for transplants that can't take place because of the shortage of donated organs. In an effort to correct this horrendous disparity that exist between those who require organs and those who receive them, a new organization has been founded; UA Students for Organ Donation. Unfortunately, it appears that the general population inhabiting our fine university seems to be apathetic with regard to saving lives, as the first meeting's turnout was straight dismal. It would appear that individuals have more time for Thefacebook than for a worthy cause? I understand that many people have stringent schedules, however, time spent saving lives can never be thought of as wasted! I urge the student body to become more involved and aid in this endeavor to save lives! And even if UAOD is not conducive to your schedule, take a few minutes to register for post-mortem organ donation at www.azdonorregistry.org as this is the only way by which to become eligible for organ donation! Also, urge friends and family members to do so, as well. This is a collective effort and everybody is encouraged to get involved!

Ian Butler
biochemistry senior

Arizona should hang head in shame

Ninety-three years ago on Monday, Arizona became the last state in the continental United States to join the union. Almost a century later, Arizona has found itself at or near the bottom of another list, this one for less glamorous reasons.

Arizona has for many years been either 49th or 50th in terms of its education system. Thankfully, Arizonans elected Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano in 2002, who has been working to sort out the mess and unfunded mandates handed down by Bush and his administration.

Since the days of Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, democratic and republican states alike are having to deal with Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, resulting in state budget crises. In Arizona, that is on top of already staggering budget woes.

Gov. Napolitano, however, has proposed a balanced budget with no tax increases and greater investments in education. Those investments include several points articulated in her State of the State address earlier this year. Specifically for college students, they include the doubling of the state's contribution to student financial aid, additional funding for nursing, teaching, and engineering students and providing a 50 percent tuition reimbursement for Arizona National Guardsmen.

We are not out of the woods yet, which gives us even more reason to stand with the governor as she fights for us and with us to move Arizona forward.

David Martinez
secondary education sophomore

Meal plan needs compromise

As students, before we get all flustered about the proposed implementation of a mandatory campus meal plan, we should remember that our input and support is important to the people who run the student unions - those who will be making the calls - and we can take this opportunity to give our input. Over the past year or two I've found the effort that the Union food service managers have made to incorporate and display healthy and "alternative" diet preferences noticeable (they listened to the students who suggested the addition of "IQ fresh" in the union, and that was a success).

In my opinion, a mandatory meal plan doesn't seem so bad if there is some flexibility to account for different food tastes. Maybe an $800 minimum plan to start with and $1,900 to $2,300 plans that give you more savings, similar to the food plans we have now. I also think it would be much better received if the restaurants on University Boulevard and around campus accepted CatCards. These conditions are all within reach. A compromise is in order here.

Nicole Sanderson
environmental science sophomore

No justification for 'religious right'

I have always found it odd that religious people voted for the right. It is as though Jesus was a man who went around hating gay people, restricting people's rights and blaming the poor for their situation. You have to take a fairly literal look at the Bible to think that "a man should not lie down with another man" means that homosexuality is a sin. And you have to make quite a leap from there to think that two homosexuals being married by a judge in Massachusetts will destroy the marital system. And if you do take that literal view, why are you not also pushing for legislation calling for the public stoning of disobedient children (found in the same book as the above biblical quote)?

The other key "religious" issue seems to be a woman's right to chose whether or not she wishes to be pregnant. There is little to no support, biblically-speaking, that says anything to invalidate first- to third-month abortions. And there is no justification for preventing conception from occurring (condom use, birth control pills, morning-after pills).

Jesus went around helping people. So when you wear your "WWJD" wristband to the polling station, do you really think Jesus would vote for a person that would take support away from the poor?

So, to answer the question posed by Patrick McNamara in Thursday's Wildcat, we (the non-religious right) do not lump you (the religious right) together; rather, you do so yourselves. For it is you who claim to be religious and vote against what your savior would have. You have lumped yourselves together as the ones who, despite being called the "religious right," are neither.

Reuben Goodman
psychology senior

Diversity awareness often goes overboard

This multiculturalism and diversity awareness that is being force-fed to us needs to be curbed a little bit. I am all for recognizing people from other cultures and backgrounds; it's the American way.

But there has to be a limit - it seems like you can't say anything or do anything without "offending" someone. Kind of how Christians aren't able to be open about their faith because it may offend Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. Lets think back to the playground when we were kids. If you were playing with a GI Joe, and someone didn't like GI Joe, they walked away - you didn't have to stop playing with it because someone else didn't like it!

By far the most hated person on the face of the earth is the white, Christian American male. Maybe if everyone stopped worrying about how offended they were all the time, they could figure out what to do with their lives.

Justin Kunzelmann
alumnus