Leal campaign money has better uses elsewhere
The column about City Councilman Steve Leal ("Leal should give city refund") is absolutely right. The election is uncontested, so why does he need so much money to run a campaign he is guaranteed to win? The money that he will receive in matching funds could be used on a host of other problems.
political science junior
Leal unresponsive to college students, Tucson citizens
Mike Huston has hit the nail right on the head with his column on Councilman Steve Leal ("Leal should give city refund").
I was among the group of UA students that attended the City Council meeting last week to address Leal, and the response we received from him was quite disappointing. Never have I seen a man bolt out of a room so fast. When asked by Mayor Bob Walkup if he would like to reply to the questions given by us, as well as to other members of the Tucson community, Leal addressed one lady by informing her that he would personally talk to her and said nothing to us UA students. As soon as the meeting ended, Leal dashed out of the room before any of us could talk to him.
You figure that a man who has already served four terms on the City Council would be able to talk to a group of undergraduate college students, but no, he fled. But do I blame him for hightailing it out of that room so fast? No, not really. I would do the same thing if I were robbing tax-paying citizens of $42,000.
political science sophomore
Serious students of Machiavelli far from immoral
I was deeply wounded by comments made by one Rachael Poe in Tuesday's Wildcat ("Wildcat deeply offensive to broad swaths of students"). In her letter, Rachael Poe suggests that the "Machiavellian among us" have no morals and would particularly enjoy reading the "Daily Playboy." I wish to give Rachael Poe the benefit of the doubt, so I will assume that these startlingly derogatory remarks are the result of an uninformed opinion.
Those of us who have studied Machiavelli and even tried to pattern our actions after his writings are in fact not immoral. We have plenty of morals. For example, did you ever read Shakespeare's "Hamlet?" The moral of that story: Always kill the prince before sleeping with his mom. How about "Goldilocks and the Three Bears?" Moral: Eat the porridge and run, or at least set out bear traps.
I could provide a nearly endless list of such morals that we hold dear. It is the very nature of Machiavellianism to learn such morals quickly and apply them effectively. Furthermore, I'm sure we'd only read the "Daily Playboy" for the articles.
It is my most profound hope that from now on we can work past this prejudice against Machiavelli and his following.
computer engineering senior
Science can't explain many wonders of marijuana
This letter is in response to Blake Rebling's letter ("Cannabis scientifically proven to be a 'gateway drug'") concerning the scientific proof behind the effects of marijuana. I believe there are some things that science simply cannot explain. While he makes a somewhat valid point on the effects of marijuana on twins, he negates the fact that marijuana could very well be the reason those twins are here in the first place.
There should be a study done on the parents of those twins, which examines that magical night. Mr. Rebling's second fatal mistake is that he attempts to separate alcohol, tobacco and marijuana as if they were substitutes for one another. Anybody in Economics 100 can tell you that they are perfect complements.
Can science explain why, after 12 beers, a person is just "jonesing for a J?" I don't think so. My main point to Mr. Rebling is that science can't explain everything, and in some cases (such as this one), it is just plain dumb. Can science explain why art is pretty, why Bob Marley is awesome or how an infomercial at 5 in the morning can be the funniest thing you've ever watched? I think not. Good luck and godspeed, Mr. Rebling. You have a lot of learning to do.
Popped collar more than individualism
The audacity of a popped collar comes more from an individual's right to express a need for change, rather than a materialistic ideology of "fashion." In itself, the orthodox collar is little more than an exacerbated excuse to formalize men's dress and presentation. This uncontrollable desire to define perfection in men has inexcusably allowed us to conform to the evolutionary traits that Darwin and Mendel could have predicted years ago.
The popped collar first started as a means of individualization, but now, we must look to the collar as guidance into a new era of ever-changing fashion and an ever-increasing demand for the opposite sex. As such, men and women alike have embraced collar popping, not for its appeal toward personal style, but rather for its unparalleled medicinal, psychological and martial (or pre-martial) characteristics.
Regardless of the cockiness and pride generally associated with the trait, students abroad have enjoyed the scientific, intimate and oftentimes anti-depressive state that encompasses the expanses of the popped collar. However, popped collars offer more than a generic, overall ecstasy. Popped collars offer reprieve from the jocks who are too bulky to look cool with a popped collar (it really doesn't work for you jocks, sorry). Popped collars are giving the little guy a chance. Popped collars are offering much more than style; they offer equality.
Being a current collar popper myself, there truly can be something to be said when a man can break convention and behold the popped collar within. Each man has the ability to evolve and acknowledge societal change in order to continue in the ranks toward indefinite status as the one and only alpha male.
Today, it is no longer necessary to promote how much you can bench or how sweet your ride is, because it only takes a few muscles to change a man. It only takes a popped collar to spark dramatic evolution through such an infinitesimal medium. Try it for yourself - I'd lay down half of my polos so that you too will feel its power and heed its warmth.
molecular and cellular biology sophomore
tricter changes needed for Arizona DUI policies
This letter is in response to Ross Hager's article "Police: DUI arrests up as patrols increase." In the article the University of Arizona Police Department's spokesman Sgt. Eugene Mejia makes some statements about the patrolling and enforcement of DUIs. UAPD seems to be under the impression that the statement "If you drink and drive, you will get caught" is the truth while I know many students who, unfortunately, feel differently.
When is the police department going to understand what is really going on and make a much needed drastic change? According to Mejia, "The best way to not get a DUI is to be responsible," and being responsible, according to Mejia, is not drinking to the point of not being able to understand what's going on. Mejia is sending a message to a community of students that as long as you kind of understand what's going on around you, you should jump behind the wheel and drive.
It is time for a real change. DUI offences shouldn't be treated lightly, and a small fine and maybe a night in jail isn't enough. We are a college campus that abuses alcohol, and I'd rather be pulled over every weekend to prove that someone sober is driving than have people under the influence in a car next to me. Raise the fines and jail time so driving under the influence has real consequences. UAPD needs to take a real stand and show through action that driving under the influence will not be tolerated. Not until UAPD is arresting and prosecuting every person they can find in full force will many students understand that drunken driving is never acceptable and will have direr consequences.
nutritional sciences sophomore
Religious studies, science require different approaches
Mary Adde brought up some interesting (and entertaining points) about intelligent design and the theory of evolution ("There's room for religion"). Regarding her last comment about the anatomical placement of the prostate gland and the pain caused by its gradual growth, biology can also explain that, seeing that its growth might be caused by normal "wear and tear," or perhaps by the presence of certain chemicals in the body. Either the way, the body was not made to last, which falls in line with both religious and scientific viewpoints.
Another fundamentally important thing to realize when discussing the theory of evolution versus religious knowledge is that the two do not necessary belong in the same category, and therefore one does not need to (and cannot) measure religion, or spirituality, in the same way that scientific knowledge is measured; This is the job of theological and philosophical works, which to a degree can be considered "the science of religion." The main thing to realize is that science attempts to answer "how" and religion attempts to answer "why." Trying to "scientificize" religion or trying to spiritualize science are not impossible, seeing that both science and spirituality can definitely find common ground, but they should be approached differently.
political science senior