Both sides should be careful with pornography stats

I wish to comment on the recent letters about pornography. For Kyle Wade: Be careful with statistics. I don’t recall any sources being cited, nor any mention of what constitutes a Web site or a hit. Is a Web site meant to count every page in a site, every url or merely every unique url? Is a hit meant to be a hit on a Web site by a unique computer?

Also, going with the assumption that the number of Web sites is by unique url, and the number of hits is the number of unique hits on a Web site, I would say the stats are probably accurate.

As for Joseph Jaramillo: Also be careful with statistics. If there are 260 million Web sites of pornography, that does not imply that there are anywhere near that many pornographers. How many Web sites are you assuming the average pornographer makes to come up with half the population of internet users as the total number of pornographers? I would imagine a small group of programmers and pornographers could easily make quite a few dozen porn sites.

Also, 60 million hits does not imply that the majority of the hits are being done by people between the age of 12 and 17. Rather, Kyle is implying that the number of people between the ages of 12 and 17 who have seen pornography online between those ages is higher than any other age group. It is far more likely that a small portion of the population gives the majority of the hits, and that this group is probably much older. Given that assumption, it is pretty hard to conclude that the number is 9 million in the U.S.

Also be careful – Wade never mentioned anything about his views of sex being evil. His main arguments were that pornography is addictive, it may make men far more likely to commit adultery and it may cause rape. The last I may not agree with, but the other two have some merit. Neither has anything to do with any views involving sex being dirty.

‘Nuestro Himno’ not the ‘Star-Spangled Banner’

With regards to Lori Foley’s column Monday, I felt myself initially sympathizing with the Ashlee Simpson argument, yet still scratching my head over actually having read the lyrics and hearing the words.

Fellow students, read the lyrics. Quite simply, “”Nuestro Himno”” comes nowhere close to even the first of the four stanzas of “”The Star-Spangled Banner.”” In retrospect, the Ashlee Simpson argument doesn’t hold. Messing up the national anthem because one lacks the ability to sing is a far cry from corrupting it for political clout. Americans ought to cringe equally whenever political forces on either side corrupt our flag by replacing the field of 50 stars with peace signs or Republican elephants.

Leave our anthem and our flag alone. Then we might have enough grounding in civility to have a legitimate political discussion.

‘American’ exclusively spoken in America

In response to Lori Foley’s Monday column, “”Oh say, why can’t we sing in Spanish,”” I ask Foley, are you an American? Last time I checked, we’re in the U.S., and we speak English here. Not Spanish, not French, not Hebrew, but good ol’ fashioned American. Wherever it was you got this sissy idea of tolerance, you can send it right back: America has never, and will never tolerate differences. What’s next, the Bible in German? C’mon. We all know English is God’s language.

I think back with pastoral glee to that time when we could burn perceived dissidents at the stake. Or many years after Salem, when that fine American hero Joseph McCarthy exposed many actors, writers and his political enemies as the subversive Communists they were. Although history betrayed the fine man, I’m sure Sen. McCarthy would today see this national anthem ridiculousness for what it is: helping the terrorists.

I think our erudite and eloquent president has it right; people ought to learn English in this country. As an Anglo patron sitting at the bar I tend so succinctly put it, “”They come to America, and ain’t spoke nothin’ but Mexican. I can’t un’erstand stand em’ half the time.”” Get it together, Foley. This is the U.S., not the land of the free and the home of the … well, whatever that line is.

More money for CatTran unfair to commuters

In regard to the article “”Parking rates to increase,”” I do acknowledge the benefits of adding the night CatTran, but increasing parking rates is not an efficient way to provide for the addition. Many of the students who receive parking permits do not live on campus – thus the reason for the permit in the first place. The addition of the night CatTran will not benefit those who do live off campus and are paying the extra $20 for parking permits. Many of the students who live in the residence halls do not own vehicles and yet are enjoying the service at others’ expense who are not benefiting. Students who live off campus and are in need of a parking pass are not on campus for the most part around 11 p.m. anyway. The night CatTran will not be of efficient use to them. The addition of the night CatTran is valuable to the university, but increasing the price of parking permits is not a fair way to fund the service.

Sughed: Letter shows good greeks do for community

I am writing in response to the letter, “”Dodgeball tourney worthwhile.”” I am a member of the Gamma Phi Beta sorority who actively participates in competition events put on by fraternities and other sororities when it concerns raising money for specific philanthropies. I appreciate the comments by the author, who chose to debunk the myths of greek life and acknowledge the events we hold as fun and also the motivation of charity behind them. Being recognized positively in the Wildcat comes few and far between and positive feedback is always appreciated. Thanks again to Lauren Wood for her honesty and depiction of greek life here at the UA.

Sughed: UA should spend more money on student parking

I am writing in response to Holly Wells’ article, “”Parking rates to increase.”” As one of many broke UA students whoseÿsecond-semester bank accountÿhas plummeted to an all-time low, the words “”rates”” and “”increase”” are quite unsettling. However, more disturbing then these words printed on the front page is the reason why there is once again an additional financial burden for students to carry next school year.

Between a 4-percent tuition hike and higher union rates, fall 2006 already promises to be a more costly semester, without an additional increase in parking prices. However, Parking and Transportation Services is not to blame for this. As the article explained, with fuel pricesÿextremely inflatedÿand higher salary expenses, PTS must raise rates as it receives absolutely no state or university funding. Herein lies the problem.

TheÿUA, our promotedÿ””Wildcat Family,”” should be invested in accommodating students’ fundamental needs, and high among those is transportation. The university has money toÿspend on frivolous alumni fountains and flowerbeds,ÿbut not on parking for its students? Inviting atmospheres and friendly environments are very nice additions to any campus, granted, but call me crazy when I suggest that providing affordable spots for students to park slightly outweighs pristine landscaping. The UA needs to join forces with PTS and support its student-oriented services. Flowers are beautiful, but give students a break and some cheap cement.

Sughed: Van Horn photo good to see

Looking through the end of the year photospread today, I was pleased to see some pictures of former ASUA presidential candidate Matt Van Horn. As his campaign manager, I was thrilled that his campaign finally received some coverage in the Arizona Daily Wildcat. Keep up the good work; my only suggestion is that next year you try to cover both sides before the vote … or at least just a week or two after.