Arizona Daily Wildcat
Thursday February 27, 2003
Latimore deserves more respect from sports writer
In response to yesterday's sports column, "A Slice of Bacon for Latimore": Mr. Bacon, I have little to say to you because you have little gratitude or character. You may think that you came across cordially because you qualified yourself as not being better than Dennis Latimore, but the fact is that you are much, much worse. Your column continually belittles Mr. Latimore's contributions to the basketball program and to our experience here at the University of Arizona.
You accuse him of whining and being a "mediocre power forward." You call him a "230 pound paperweight," who ought to be thankful to have a spot on the nation's best team. Here's news for you: Dennis Latimore worked hard to get to where he is. He earned his spot on the nation's best basketball team. You, on the other hand, probably just walked into the Wildcat and got yourself a job. I will not belittle the rest of those who work at the Wildcat, but I am sure Mr. Latimore put in many more hours, a heck of a lot more sweat, blood and tears to get his spot than you did. I know, because I'm the Asian dude who has played basketball his entire life and still gets my behind handed to me whenever I hit the Rec.
You bought the Arizona shorts because the athletic tradition at Arizona is something to be proud of. It is built on lives of many, many athletes just like Mr. Latimore. You would do well to recognize that. So thanks for all that you've given us, Dennis. We all (the real fans at least) would love for you to stay, but we wish you Godspeed in wherever life leads you.
Sports columnist's letter to Latimore 'pathetic, naive'
Nothing in the world would ever make me think that another sports reporter would annoy me as much as Ryan Finley did, but I guess I looked past the Wildcat's short-sighted and self-righteous Shane Bacon. Sadly, someone told this guy that he was an all-knowing, all-seeing gift to the world. Or something like that. You are entitled to your opinion that you think Dennis Latimore is making a bad decision, but your basis for support was elementary and quite honestly, pathetic.
Do you think that you are the first person to come up with all of these "great" reasons for staying with the squad? If so, that's just naive. Any reasonably intelligent person would understand that Dennis has probably been thinking about this much longer than you and has probably weighed out all the factors. In fact, making this decision probably came that much harder, because he already did know all of the obvious reasons for staying that you so obnoxiously pointed out. Perhaps there is something deeper there, that is not meant to be public, because of people who lack tact, such as yourself. If this is the best type of commentary that you can come up with, then you should focus on keeping yourself from flipping burgers at McDonald's, because I think Latimore is going to be all right.
There is a way to question someone's decision and be critical without being a flat-out jerk, and you need to find it. Your method of filling a column full of cheap shots and one-liners you probably stole from some B-rated announcer is not going to cut it in the long run. I know I speak for a number of people when I say I wish you would lose your speaking ability too. Then we wouldn't have to read some nobody's thoughts on why he thinks he knows what's best for everyone else.
I for one would just like to tell Dennis thanks for your effort here at UA and good luck in the future. You don't need to deal with these, as Lute would say, "spoiled fans."
history education junior
Letter advocates sacrifice of liberties for war, not peace
I am writing in response to Doak Cheatham's Tuesday letter. One might expect that a political science senior would be able to sensibly employ, not to mention spell, the term "fascist." Still, I was surprised by his irresponsible invective and hyperbole. Mr. Cheatham's letter displays an alarming lack of respect for legitimate democratic participation and protest which confirms my suspicions about his political proclivities and those who, like him, attack war protesters as either anti-American or pro-Saddam. Mr. Cheatham and those he so ably apes are indeed "not willing to sacrifice our individual liberty for peace"; they would prefer to sacrifice theirs, and ours, for war.
third-year law student
Campus should rethink 'art' during budget crisis
I cannot tell you how happy I was to see the stupid teeter-totter looking thing near the fountain bent out of proportion. It probably occurred because a whole fraternity house was trying to use it for a real reason besides being an eyesore.
I find most of the "art" on campus to be ugly and useless. That stupid teeter-totter just stuck out and didn't belong there. The "art" behind the student union is gaudy and clashes with everything around it. Those stupid hairpins near Campbell Avenue need to go; they take up precious space that could be used for something useful, like a parking lot.
Now I am not against art. I appreciate beautiful things. For one, our campus is naturally beautiful, and these gaudy monstrosities they put in random spots just make our campus look pretentious. They say that this "art" is supposed to expose students to art, but I don't see our campus as being the proper platform for that desire. It's a college campus; we don't need to be bombarded by bad taste at every turn.
If they insist on wasting $100,000 a year on "art," they could at least buy works that match our naturally beautiful campus. For example, the fountain in the bottom floor of the student union is an amazing construction and matches the tones of our campus. We have a very defined coloration: dark reds and browns. Yellow and blues do not matches this motif, like that completely useless piece of crap in front of Harvill.
Please, for the sake of the budget crisis and the sake of beauty, use that money and space wisely. Don't waste it on useless art that makes our campus ugly.
Louis A. Nowaczyk II
general biology senior
Icecats only UA team that has fans with school spirit
Like Louis A. Nowaczyk II did in his Feb. 19 letter, I too have read different letters regarding alternatives to attending UA basketball games. I mostly agreed with his one point: "Just because another team does well or if there is ample seating doesn't mean people will want to attend their games."
However, more fans in America's sports are being front-runners regardless of if the level of the sport is at pro or college. Meaning, even if ample seating was available, at some point, the UA basketball team is going to suck in a few years. It's normal for any team anywhere to go from good to bad and vice versa. When the UA basketball team does start to suck, those front-runners will not attend a UA basketball game unless this team is a winner. Some of those who complain about not getting a seat at the game are front-runners.
Overall though, I'm not that concerned about available seating. I'm more concerned about the lack of spirit in UA Division I sports. I see more true spirit coming from the fans at the Icecats' games than UA men's basketball. You want a chance to see the real spirit of the fans come back on campus? Then let's renovate the McKale Center to accommodate hockey and move the Icecats up to NCAA Division I level. Then will see more real fans (like those who sit at section 120 at the TCC ) show their spirit for their team and not those front-runners (who are not real fans at all).
War protesters not fascists; don't espouse dictatorship
Doak Cheatham suffers from some misunderstandings, expressed in his Tuesday letter, which I thought worth addressing as they are repeated regularly among the pro-war crowd.
For example, Mr. Cheatham claims that the reason we see more anti- than pro-war demonstrations is because the pro-war crowd is more employed and busier with school - over the weekend, apparently. This seems a little hard to verify, and I wonder what his evidence is. My guess is that the pro-war side doesn't need to march because they are aligned with the administration and have nothing much to protest.
Mr. Cheatham also claims that anti-war demonstrators are liberal fascists.
For a political science senior, he demonstrates a very poor understanding of what fascism entails: espousal of dictatorship. I do not hear the vast sea of liberal America calling for a dictatorship here. Furthermore, anti-war demonstrators aren't endorsing the Hussein dictatorship, either; Mr. Cheatham confuses disagreement over solving a problem with disagreement over the parameters of the problem.
Moreover, there are diverse opinions among the anti-war crowd regarding what the best alternatives are and why war is bad. Demonstrators against this war range from conservatives still unconvinced by the evidence, to military personnel who think the risks are too great, to Libertarians who dispute to right of the state to commit mass murder. Mr. Cheatham sees homogeneity where there is variance.
I fail to see how taking to the streets constitutes a sacrifice of individual liberty, as Mr. Cheatham says of the French; it in fact seems like an expression of liberty. But I would like to point out that we Americans have been asked to sacrifice a lot of our civil liberties over the last two years (e.g. the USA Patriot Act), and if current legislation being drafted by the justice department is enacted, we will give up even more.
Finally, Mr. Cheatham suggests that if the anti-war crowd would just sit down and stop yelling, they'd be heard more. But there's plenty of yelling from the other side, and he must know that people who are passionate about something can get pretty vocal about it - what's new? Besides, despite the fact that the administration does, in fact, employ the use of focus groups, the president has made it clear that his vision is more important than the opinion of the electorate to which he in theory owes his power.
Hmm: Fascism, anyone?
cognitive science graduate student
Sweatshops take advantage of workers and consumers
This letter is in response to Brian Danker's Wednesday letter advocating the running of sweatshops. Mr. Danker, your letter was the most painfully ignorant material I have read in quite some time. It waged attacks against SAS and all others who see sweatshop practices as inhumane and unacceptable. Your letter reflects a great degree of moral flexibility since you blatantly state that you have no qualms with the suffering and exploitation of others as long as you receive the new AirForce Ones in a timely manner at your local Footlocker.
Since it is overwhelmingly clear that you have absolutely no knowledge relating to the truth in sweatshops, please permit me to briefly inform you of your ignorance. First of all, sweatshops are employed in one form or another by almost every single U.S. clothing distribution company, not just Nike. This is because there is currently no legislation that requires companies to document and be held accountable for the proper treatment of their overseas employees. These workers only work in these factories because they are absent of any other options. Large corporations move into these poverty-stricken areas and push out any other job markets that may have been present before.
The classic "at least we're giving them jobs" argument is a hideous fallacy, Mr. Danker. That's a big-boy word for bullshit. Hey, why don't we feed homeless people dog food 'cause "at least they'll be eating," right? The most upsetting statement you made though was that these people receive "honest wages." Most of these workers don't even get paid a living wage. That's a big-boy term, Mr. Danker, for money needed just to survive. Just like I'm sure you would die without your new Gap Khakis, the people who made them actually have to worry about dying because they don't have any food.
I would talk about the inhumane conditions these people work in and the daily abuse and exploitation they endure, but you have already stated that these are issues to which you are indifferent. The point that SAS is trying to make through their work is that the Big Five manufacturing corporations and others don't have to operate this way. They do it because ignorant people think it's to keep prices low and not stock prices high. They rob and defile you and countless others when you buy their products, Mr. Danker, and you write letters thanking them for it.
Sweatshop workers don't enjoy winning situation
In response to Brian Danker's letter, "Sweatshops are a system in which everyone wins," Brian maintains that sweatshop workers earn an honest wage. This is not the case. Sweatshops in several countries are trying to unionize and demand better pay and working conditions. Why, if the workers are treated so well, do they continue to try to organize? This is all a little vague though - here is an example:
The Matamoros Garment "Factory" (I'd call it a sweatshop) in Mexico. The workers were not paid for 3.5 weeks, protested unhealthy cafeteria conditions, were forced to work overtime, were locked in the factory by management, denied freedom of association and were subject to verbal and physical abuse. (http://www.cleanclothes.org/urgent/03-02-06.htm)
This is not what I would call a "win" situation for the people who work at Matamoros, and perhaps this is what Mr. Danker has forgotten: that these are people who live, work, fight and die to produce his clothing when he did not mention the human rights cost of sweatshops.
As Mr. Danker has effectively shown, Nike and the American consumer are making a "killing," but we do so against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, child labor laws, hell - even local assault and battery laws. Liberal rhetoric aside, I am unwilling to buy clothes that are brought to me through the torture of "weak" people.
That being said, I wish SAS the best of luck, although I must suggest a different name, you see because you are not really anti-SAS (that name is pretty indirect - you are pro-sweatshop) - how about, "Students Exploiting People for Money" or "Students Who Remain Ignorant to Secure Cheaper Shoes?"
engineering physics sophomore