Arizona Daily Wildcat
Monday Mar. 25, 2002
Staff picks right on!
Congrats to Justin St. Germain for his perfect picks on last Thursday's games, including two upsets. It's just too damn bad that the Cats didn't make it a third.
There is more to it than just getting the story
To the reporters and editors of the Daily Wildcat: It's about time you guys grow up a little bit and get some class. In reading the letters on Thursday from the residents of Corleone Apartments regarding your behavior in response to the death of their peer, it's too bad that the first thought that came to my mind was "Well, not much has changed at the Wildcat." Three years ago, while working as a resident assistant at a dorm here on campus, there was a tragic accident where a resident ended up in a coma. When the young man died, there was almost instantly a Wildcat reporter stationed in the entrance to the Residence Hall attempting to get a reaction to the news.
Well, he got it. A few unfortunate people who had been friends of the young man found out about his death FROM the reporter! When we asked the reporter to leave and let people grieve in reaction to the news, he started an argument with several of us on how he had the "right" to be there. On something as serious as the death of a student, maybe it's time to reevaluate your duty on reporting every aspect of a news story.
I'm not sure what you're all learning in the journalism department, but a course in compassion seems to be in order.
psychology graduate student
Do not criticize for running clean campaigns
Candidates who run traditionally are not running "dirty campaigns," as Shane Dale asked in his March 19 article. People who are running as Clean Elections candidates should not be ridiculed by Mr. Dale or Matt Salmon because the two of them disagree with the law.
As the deputy director of the Clean Elections Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting and defending the voter-passed Clean Elections Act and a candidate who has run under the law, I feel qualified to answer his rhetorical question.
Private financing of campaigns is not synonymous to dirty politics. However, it must be acknowledged that the public wants reforms to the old system.
Arizona voters put forth and passed the Citizens Clean Elections Act because it protects the public interest, lessens the influence of special interests in politics and makes politicians accountable to voters. It is a voluntary system that gives a voice to good candidates who otherwise would not have the money to run for office.
Arizona voters are skeptical about the effect of special interest on public policy. Recent polls revealed 84 percent of Arizonans believe campaign contributions affect how elected officials vote on policy.
Mr. Dale correctly points out the 2002 gubernatorial race will be greatly affected by Clean Elections. Thanks to the Clean Elections Act, Arizona voters will have their choice of 13 potential gubernatorial candidates, 12 of whom are Clean Elections participating candidates; three Republican, six Democrats, one Independent, one Reform party candidate, and one Libertarian party candidate. Any candidate who raises enough grassroots support in the form of $5-qualifying contributions and nominating petition signatures is eligible to receive Clean Elections funds regardless of party affiliation.
Republican candidate Matt Salmon is not participating.
Mr. Dale contends that Salmon has been criticized for his decision to continue taking special interest money. The fact is supporters of Clean Elections criticize Salmon for his use of deceptive information when discussing the law. On several occasions he has been corrected yet refuses to stop disseminating misleading information. In addition, Mr. Dale and Salmon need to find some other way to promote Salmon's candidacy other than criticizing candidates who are running under the law. There are many critical issues the next governor of Arizona faces.
Detailed information on the Clean Elections Act is available at www.azclean.org.
Clean Elections Institute, Inc.
Mr. Peterson 'thanks the liberals'
I sometimes wonder what it must be like to be Laura Winsky, Mariam Durrani, Kendrick Wilson or Caitlin Hall. I mean think about it. Wouldn't it be nice to have such little brain capacity in your skull that you could feel the wind blow in one ear and out the other?
Ms. Winsky titled her bit from the Wednesday issue of the week "From presidency to presidency." She, being the good little liberal that she is, passes blame on Republican presidents while stating very simply that Bill Clinton and his scandals had no effect on the country's national security or economy. This could not be farther from the truth, and most people on the left know that Ms. Winsky's claim is false. For example, even Dick Morris, Clinton's political strategist, stated that Clinton was too distracted in his second term with his disgusting affairs to focus on anything else; national security (and even the economy in his last year in office) was simply farther down the list of his priorities. Clinton was also given the chance to get a hold of bin Laden and he flatly rejected this.
Georgie Anne Geyer, a former foreign correspondent stated in a guest commentary after Sept. 11 that, " It was the Clinton Administration's passivity during the 1990s that set the stage for this new era." Let us also not forget that President Clinton also cut our army by less than half its Gulf War size. Former Reagan Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger explained to Sean Hannity, "By every account," Weinberger said about Clinton, "he was very neglectful of the military. I don't think he understood it. I don't think he liked it. And it was a very bad period for the military. Morale was very low."
The real problem with the radical left was stated simply by a true Bolshevik, Caitlin Hall, who stated, "I've had enough. I'm fed up with Bush and his sky high approval ratings." I know it must be so frustrating to the hippie radicals that Bush has had an 80 plus percent approval rating and that he has set a record for that approval rating staying high for so long. After the Enron fiasco (which the Democrats were also involved with), the tax cuts (which the Democrats blamed the "recession" on and proven wrong by the economy growing again), Daschle's questioning the war effort, and now this criticizing Cheney's energy task force has all left me feeling great about the 2002 elections. The Democrats are running scared into the fall elections and they are trying everything they can to make President Bush look bad.
I also want to thank the liberals on the Wildcat staff for all their radical and ridiculous commentaries. You all make recruitment efforts for the College Republicans a lot easier for me. Keep it up!
Charles A. Peterson
A little help with Middle East history
Early in Mariam Durrani's commentary on Friday, she said, "Discussing truth, when it comes to the age-old Middle Eastern conflict, is na•ve and self righteous." When I read about the thought that went through her mind hearing Gen. Dagan speak of Israel's objective being establishment of a Jewish state, "her thought was 'What about a Palestinian state that was there before Israel?'" The thought that went through my mind was "She should read up on the history of the region."
Ms. Durrani, there are some truths you should read up on, because you seem to be na•ve about the history of the region, and that's dangerous when speaking about the Arab-Israeli conflict. So I'll help you out a little.
Truth: Palestine was a backwater region all but forgotten by the Ottomans and never a truly important region for Arabs in history (and Jerusalem has never been a capital of any Arab state) while Jews have lived in the region consistently for thousands of years. Truth: Palestine was a League of Nations mandate of Great Britain after WWI and the end of the Ottoman Empire, and both the Jews and Arabs living there were considered Palestinians. Truth: When the UN voted in 1947 to partition Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, the Jews accepted the plan even though what they were going to receive was not everything they wanted and the Arabs rejected the plan. I was present at General Dagan's talk, and he mentioned this, as I recall. Truth: Only after the establishment of Israel in 1948 was there a state in what is considered today historical "Palestine." The West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied by the Arabs until June, 1967. The Palestinians could have set up a state between '48 and '67 - but they did not. That's a whole other issue.
Also, when the general mentioned, "That is not my problem," I recall him saying that phrase most often when asked questions about Palestinian politics or about policy of an independent Palestinian state. He said many times in his talk he doesn't want to have control over the Palestinians. The future of the Palestinians is not his problem. The Palestinian economy is not? One would think the Arab nations that claim to want to help the Palestinians would try to aid in this aspect.
The second half of Ms. Durrani's commentary I have no problem with at all. Well, except the bit about how Jewish CEOs largely control the American media. To make such a comment reminds me of what one can read on David Duke's personal site, or Stormfront, and several Palestinian/Arab run sites, etc - i.e. Web sites of white-power groups or known hate groups, and sites that are mostly propaganda and contain little to no fact. To me, her including this in her commentary could be seen as anti-Semitic/anti-Jewish, and there is already so much of both in this world we don't need any more of it in the Wildcat as well.
political science junior