Arizona Daily Wildcat
Monday, October 18, 2004
Government should protect young workers
Please tell me how in this day of safety by our government, a birdseed grinder can kill a wonderful 19-year-old young man like Josh Morgan? The job Josh did is one young men are attracted to; aren't they entitled to protection from harm? Where was OSHA before this happened? Tell me that equipment like this is inspected! Why are they only on the scene after Josh was crushed to death?
You cannot buy a lawnmower or piece of home equipment that does not have safety features to protect the user. Are young workers not important?
Josh was a shining light in his family's life. Many people are angry and want answers and to be assured that this will not happen again.
aunt of Josh Morgan
Unbiased reporting doesn't really exist
This letter is in response to the Friday letter by Phillip Denton. Do you realize just how naive it is to say, "leave your opinions out of the news?" To say that there even can exist an unbiased report is complete and total bullshit.
First of all, anything worth reporting on is too detailed to include them all, and without one detail, the information technically is biased. Furthermore, the entire purpose of the media, and I do apologize to those of you like Michael Moore that view it as such an amazing tool to bring out truth, is to generate interest in something. "The truth" is an entirely relative issue, and unless you want to simply write what they said and nothing more, then you cannot report on politics.
The only way to get an unbiased idea for what happened in those debates is to watch those debates, and even then, you as a human will receive that information based on your perceptions of the candidates. It would be a beautiful thing if human nature let such ideals as absolute truth (and Communism) work, but they don't, and it's simply ridiculous to say otherwise.
Call me a cynic, but as I write, I am making judgments that make me biased, and you reading this are doing it as well. Seriously, stop trying to delude yourself into thinking that there is that beautiful answer to anything. It makes me sick. We're humans. We are inherently judging everything.
mechanical engineering sophomore
Coulter deserves to speak, despite what she says
Several letters in Friday's Daily Wildcat scolded the Republicans on campus for inviting Ann Coulter to speak as a reaction to having Michael Moore on campus. While I agree Ann Coulter has made some rash and very harsh statements concerning Muslims, I think it is still appropriate to have her on campus.
Why, you ask? Well, just think about Michael Moore's statements he has made against anyone who does not support him. Both people are in the extreme when it comes to their views. One is extreme left and one is extreme right. I say the political balance and public notoriety of these speakers is the same and, since Michael Moore has already made his appearance, Ann Coulter deserves to be heard whether we like it or not.
Terror drill realistic in being unannounced
I am rather shocked at some of the comments that have been made about the drill that occurred on campus this past Monday. You would think that intelligent people such as university students and faculty would understand the importance not only of the drill, but in keeping the drill realistic and "unannounced."
God forbid, but if a disaster were to occur on this campus, I don't think it would be kind enough to say, "Hey, don't go by the Gould-Simpson Building on Friday at 10:33 a.m. because it's gonna explode!" Such a disaster will not give the proper authorities time to prepare for what is to come, to evacuate people and get the right equipment that will be needed to assist in the management of the disaster and the treatment of the injured.
These fine men and women who put their lives on the line for us each and every day deserve proper training so they can serve us even better than they are now. The importance of keeping a drill of such magnitude realistic and quiet far outweighs any of the minor inconveniences such as a cancelled class or a missed exam that people put up with on that day.
science education senior
Election discussions lack any sort of substance
With only weeks left until the 2004 presidential election, tension is building more and more rapidly on campus between parties. Left and right, one can observe Democrats bashing Republicans and Republicans bashing Democrats.
For the past few weeks, I've seen this a lot in the Daily Wildcat's opinion and mailbag sections, which I read daily. I'd like to assume that the "opinions" columnists and students who write to the "mailbag" just want to set facts straight and possibly change the mind of a reader who doesn't have a clear understanding of who has a misinformed opinion.
Unfortunately the only thing I've read, from students on both sides of the fence, is worthless banter with absolutely nothing to back up what is said. For example, Democrats say Michael Moore tells the truth, Republicans don't. Republicans say that Democrats are using falsified information to scare people into voting for Kerry, Democrats disagree.
These articles lead me to believe that the students and columnists who write these articles either 1) just want to rant and fan the flames that already trouble the campus, or 2) just want to see their name in the Daily Wildcat. I would have a lot of respect for the student who wrote their comments to the Wildcat and provided a credible article or Web site any reader could see that would verify the writer's point.
For all those students, Republican, Democrat or anything in between, what I have to say to you is this: Hate on campus has to do with ignorance, and if we could work to show those people who throw out "facts" that have no source, or people who don't know where they stand, this campus would amount to a lot more than just one big screaming match.
Senate debate should have included Libertarian view
As many know, there are three candidates vying for the Senate seat currently held by John McCain, all of them ballot-qualified and from parties with major-party ballot status: Republican John McCain, Democrat Stu Starky and Libertarian Ernest Hancock. Of these, two were invited to debate Friday by ASUA.
Ernie Hancock, despite providing significant contrast to both other contenders, especially on the important issues of fiscal policy and immigration, was iced out of the debate, but not by direct fault of ASUA. When questioned about the matter, Alastair Chapman and Fernando Ascensio claimed that this was on request of the Starky and McCain campaigns.
If the goal of the ASUA is to foster civic engagement among UA students, they are doing themselves a disservice by only providing students two-thirds of the positions out there.
Additionally, given the pending legal action against ASU over providing unequal access to ballot-qualified candidates being a violation of the state constitution and possibly federal law, our student leaders have acted irresponsibly by potentially inviting unwelcome legal trouble.
We ought to be able to expect our student leaders to show the qualities expected of a leader, which include fairness, integrity and responsibility. We should have been able to expect Messrs.
Ascencio and Chapman to have enough integrity and maturity of character to tell the representatives of the Democratic and Republican parties that ASUA will either hold a real debate or no debate at all, and refuse to cross the thin line between fostering civic engagement and corrupt collaboration with political parties. Alas, it's silly to expect things out of a system which values personality over character.
A public apology to Ernie Hancock and to the students of the University of Arizona is the only thing that will prove me wrong.
president, University of Arizona Libertarians
Physics graduate student