Arizona Daily Wildcat Online
Front Page
Go Wild
Live Culture
Police Beat
Special Sections
Photo Spreads
The Wildcat
Letter to the Editor
Wildcat Staff
Job Openings
Advertising Info
Student Media
Arizona Student Media Info
Student TV
Student Radio
The Desert Yearbook
Daily Wildcat Staff Alumni


Arizona Daily Wildcat
Wednesday, November 9, 2005
Print this

Republicans don't require 'loyalty oaths' for events

As an active member of the College Republicans, I have been to countless events across the city since the start of the semester. These events have ranged from City Council rallies and debates to fundraisers for the state Republican Party. Sometimes the College Republicans are responsible for helping set up the various events, and then do check-in if there is a roster of who will be attending.

So as a Republican who has both attended and organized a Republican event, never once have I been given or had to issue a "loyalty oath" to fellow Republicans, as Near Eastern studies graduate student Sandy Marshall accused Republicans of doing in Friday's Wildcat ("Refuse and Resist come from many political persuasions"). I would really like to know what evidence Sandy based that claim on.

Sandy also seemed to be associating Drew Alyeshmerni with the Republican Party. Maybe Sandy should do a little research before she does that again. After reading Ms. Alyeshmerni's mailbag letter, I thought I'd look her up on to see if she was in the College Republicans. Ms. Alyeshmerni does not look like a Republican to me. Which is fine; I respect her political philosophy, as I do Sandy's, and anyone's for that matter.

Sandy seems to be guilty of the very ignorance she decries. She made a baseless claim about Republican's making members sign loyalty oaths. Then she associated someone with a political affiliation that they don't have. That is, do I daresay, a bit ignorant?

Michael Sistak
political science sophomore

Confederate flag a 'symbol of bravery and honor'

I just woke up this morning and what do I find to start my day off? Scott Patterson ("Moscow's Confederate flag") telling me that a symbol of bravery and honor that my great-great-grandfather, Pvt. Aaron M. Bearden, who fought under in the 2nd Georgia State Line Regiment Confederate States Army, is in fact equivalent to the greatest mass murderer of all time.

Patterson's weak attempt to link the Confederate flag to Vladimir Lenin is described in this quote: "On the one side you have death, destruction, racism, genocide. On the other, you have an influential part of a country's history." While Mr. Patterson claims to be an international studies student, he has absolutely no clue as to the history in his own backyard. Let us check the facts about the Confederate Battle Flag (CBF) for a moment.

Born in September 1861, created by three Confederates, and used solely to distinguish Southern troops on a field of battle, the CBF had no political meaning and did not fly on any building. Having garnered honor and sacrifice by the blood of the men who carried it in battle, furled in surrender, the CBF remains a symbol of the warriors' spirit, men who refused to yield to overwhelming odds and fought for what they believed. Since that time, its main use has been by the United Confederate Veterans and Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Troops who fought under the CBF in integrated ranks were more diverse than any force up to that time: of course whites, but also blacks, women, children, old men, Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole, Mohican, Irish, Scandinavian, Mexican and Jew. This of course was not the case in the Union Army, as all nonwhites were placed in the segregated U.S. Colored Troops units. The first memorial to black troops is on the Confederate Monument in Arlington, Va., showing a black soldier.

Truth be told, the flag of death, destruction, racism and genocide that Mr. Patterson seeks to link with Lenin is our own stars and stripes. Just ask the American Indians and the blacks.

Billy Bearden
Carrollton, Ga.

UA students could use lesson in cleanliness

I would like to commend Ariel Serafin ("Crews mop up after Homecoming") for getting to the root of a topic that has demanded our attention for some time: The fact that we live on a campus with many Mister Messies. Apparently, no one's mommies or daddies taught our student body how to behave, and it's hard-working citizens like Miguel Rodriguez who are forced to clean up the mess.

Now don't get me wrong, I can be pretty nasty myself. I never help out around the apartment, I don't pick up after myself and I just flat-out stink. But unlike the other students at this school, I did not attend Homecoming. Therefore, I'm credible.

I think we should all step back and realize that one man's vomit is not another man's treasure (unless you're into that). Let's all take care of our beautiful campus, or I'll give Miguel Rodriguez my permission to take a shit on all your doorsteps.

Niall O'Connor
UA alumna

Single photo not representative of Homecoming spirit

I am disappointed in the Daily Wildcat's coverage of Saturday's Homecoming parade. Thousands of people lined up on the Mall to be part of the event, and the Wildcat only wrote about how much garbage was left on campus. Many of the university's fraternities, sororities and nongreek clubs participate by spending hours, days or even weeks building their floats.

For all the time put into them, the Wildcat had only one picture: A school bus covered in streamers. Hardly representative of the work the rest of the groups put into the event, this picture should have been the last one the Wildcat considered to showcase the parade. Hopefully in the future, the Wildcat will at least mention some of the outstanding parade entries and encourage other clubs to show school spirit with more than a decorated school bus.

Brian Primeau
optical sciences graduate student

Other ways for women to truly love themselves

This letter is in response to yesterday's article, "Feminists advocate self-love." After considering the article, I found that the title "Feminists advocate masturbation" to be a truer and more accurate title. I want it to be understood that there is quite a difference between loving one's self and masturbation. Loving one's self comprises acceptance of one's own personality, feelings and body. Masturbation is sexually gratifying yourself.

I want it said now before anyone gets the wrong idea about my position, that I wholeheartedly support the drive to get people to love themselves and accept themselves for who they are, and I consider is a very important and noble pursuit; however, I feel that the promoting of masturbation is completely the wrong way to do it. Personal beliefs and standards aside, masturbation would only provide a temporary escape and relief from the pressures felt by those with low self-esteem or self-image. This is no long-term solution. It is a momentary hormonal-induced euphoria. When the pleasure is over, the negative thoughts and feelings toward self will inevitably return, solving nothing.

I imagine that if one were to ask a woman who masturbates on a regular basis about her self-image, that she would answer in the positive. Yet if that same woman were suddenly denied masturbation, the negativity would start to slowly creep back into her life. Why? She had become dependent on the endorphins released through masturbation to relieve her stress, her worries and her concerns. Without such stimulation, she would be right where she started.

A woman who truly loves herself is able to do so whenever, wherever and under whatever circumstances she may be in, and she can do this on her own, without stimulation, escapism or any other means.

Nathan Urbancic
senior majoring in Spanish

Write a Letter to the Editor
Torture, integrity don't mix
Urban upheaval à la française
Restaurant and Bar Guide
Housing Guide
Search for:
advanced search Archives


Webmaster -
© Copyright 2005 - The Arizona Daily Wildcat - Arizona Student Media