Arizona Daily Wildcat
Monday December 2, 2002
Wildcat coverage of Israeli-Palestinian conflict does present ╬both perspectives'
In response to Armand Navabi's letter published on Nov. 25, I have to disagree with his assertion that the Wildcat's coverage of the Middle East is one-sided. If anyone takes the time to search the archives of the Wildcat, they would find that the coverage is truly not.
Columns from Julian Kunnie (Africana studies director) and Mariam Durrani, which present the "other side," have had their fair share of publication in the Wildcat, among others. But the truth is that there are more than just two sides (Palestinian and Israeli perspectives) to the conflict.
The Arizona Israel Alliance, of which I am a member, is an organization dedicated to a realistic peace in the Middle East and to bringing forth the general Israeli perspective to campus. Every Wednesday at noon, when the AIA has its tables on the Mall, conversations are held and the many perspectives of the Middle East conflict are addressed.
To speak of presenting both perspectives (Israeli and Palestinian) and "to work together to bring understanding to each other" is commendable. To do this while making assumptions and not attempting to hear "the other side" is not an action dedicated to change and is hypocritical.
As a spokesman, Olson should help lower game prices for Little Brothers
I am a student and also participate in the Big Brothers Big Sisters Program of Tucson. This might seem like a pretty insignificant complaint, but I recently decided to take my little brother to the UA game vs. NAU. Even though I see Lute Olson's smiling face on every BBBS poster around campus, I was still charged three times the price my ticket cost in order to get my little brother in.
Shouldn't the most recognized spokesperson for the program's team be more accessible to the children he endorses? I just hope my little brother doesn't cry when I tell him this will be the only game I'll be able to afford for him.
business management senior
Inconsistent coverage by Wildcat biased the result of UA Battle of the Bands
I realize that this is a little late, but I thought I would speak out on the UA Battle of the Bands outcome. Was I the only person who saw the obvious bias towards eventual winner Christina Moussa? I am not saying anything about her talent (she has a beautiful voice), but there were certain factors that Moussa an unfair advantage.
For one thing, after the first preliminary round, a write-up was done in the Wildcat highly praising Moussa's performance. However, after the second preliminary round featuring four other bands, there was nothing to be found in the next day's Wildcat. Moussa had already gotten a nice publicity shot that none of the second nights' bands had been privy to.
Granted, Moussa cannot be held responsible for the Wildcat's poor coverage, but to watch at least 40 people stand up after Moussa's finals performance and vote prior to seeing the last two bands seemed downright wrong. How could the outcome possibly be a fair one if half of the voters don't even stay for the whole show?
media arts junior
Livestock producers offer ╬humane care' to animals, healthy products to public
This is in response to the three letters that replied to Jason Baran's column "Tom Turkey has a friend: Moby fights for fowl rights." First, let's address the issue of animal welfare as approached by Ms. Tricia Lamade (Nov, 19, "Animals can feel pain every bit as much as humans can") when she states that the "ethical treatment of all animals is considered to be radical and unnecessary." Livestock producers across this country are committed to providing the utmost humane care for their livestock. They view this responsibility as both a moral obligation to the animals and an economic necessity, since animals that are cared for properly perform more effectively as meat producing animals. Housing, such as structures used in the production of poultry, protect animals from predators, disease, bad weather and extreme climates. Modern housing is well ventilated, warm, well-lit, clean and scientifically designed for the specific needs of the animal, such as the availability of fresh water and a nutritionally balanced diet (Animal Industry Foundation).
Second, let's approach the issue of veganism. The myth that a vegetarian diet is healthier than a diet that includes meat, milk and eggs is completely false and unjustified. "Both the federal government and the American Heart Association contend a diet containing meat, milk and eggs is appropriate to both groups' dietary guidelines" (Animal Industry Foundation). Health benefits can be derived by meat-eaters who follow a balanced diet that is low in fat and sodium.
Lastly, I want to recognize the contribution that animal harvesting brings to the American public. Many individuals believe that all would be well if animals weren't slaughtered; but what these poorly informed people don't realize is that animal by-products are in hundreds of products that they use on a daily basis. Take for example the glue, insulation and leather goods that are made from the hide and hair of cattle. Or what about the fats and fatty acids that are essential ingredients in asphalt, cosmetics, detergents and hydraulic brake fluid? Or what about the substances from various internal organs that go into products like epinephrine, hemoglobin, insulin and glucagons (California Beef Council)? If you believe that the harvesting of animals is solely for the production of meat products, you are wrong.
agriculture education and
animal science sophomore