The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

70° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

    Mail Bag

    UA fans still loyal to beleaguered ‘Cats

    This is in response to Niall O’Connor’s comment in Thursday’s “”UA basketball not worthy of ‘blind faith.'”” What an embarrassment to UA students and alumni; telling us to pledge loyalty to another rival school because UA basketball is such a big disappointment.

    And by “”disappointed,”” you clearly mean that the ‘Cats have been invited to the NCAA tournament for 22 years in a row now. What have they done for us, you ask? Try being ranked No. 12 in the nation and battling in the toughest conference in the country. If that’s not satisfying enough, how about the most respected coach with over 800 wins under his belt? Not to mention the eye-candy players.

    And where do you get off saying that we don’t have talent? Budinger was named an All-American when we nabbed him. And after redshirting, McClellan comes off the bench sinking those 3s. And Dillon could defend the Incredible Hulk, just to name a few.

    Sure, we came a shot or two short of winning three games, but that doesn’t amount to denouncing our faith to our school, which is what helped get our beloved Wildcats this far. Come March, we’re taking that trophy home with us.

    I think I speak for all faculty and students when I say take your UCLA sweatshirt elsewhere. Here, we bleed red and blue.

    Mary Babico
    pre-pharmacy sophomore

    Minimum wage hike only an ‘adjustment’

    I wanted to do my best my best to solve this debate between Mr. Hertenstein, the philosopher, and Mr. Hoogasian, the political scientist. The minimum wage should be changed to $7.25 nationally, but stop calling it a raise. All it does is adjust the minimum wage for the inflation that took place over the last 10 years.

    Someone making $7.25 when it is officially changed will have no more purchasing power than someone making $5.15 had when it was last changed in 1997. When the minimum wage was changed, then the unemployment rate continued to go down through 2001, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

    Furthermore, the economy did not collapse. The real argument to me is whether citizens in this income bracket deserve more purchasing power.

    Matt Loehman
    pre-business junior

    New red tag policy unconstitutional?

    When reading Laura Donovan’s Jan. 19 article “”New red tag policy nabs UA student”” about the university’s new red tag policy, two words came to mind: double jeopardy.

    As an alumnus, I am no stranger to the extant stresses of community relations. During my time at the UA, I saw many instances of student shenanigans in the surrounding neighborhoods, be they wild parties or otherwise. I would also generally agree that a good relationship with one’s neighbors is something we should all strive for.

    But as a student of the law, I am also interested in preserving the most basic rights of American citizens, even those of youthful exuberance and rowdiness. When the city of Tucson tags a house, it sets into motion a punishment allowed by law to preserve the peace and order of the community and to protect the use and enjoyment of surrounding property owners of their holdings.

    It is an immediate and swift reaction to behaviors that might otherwise induce private and public nuisance lawsuits and one which carries its own penalties and fines depending on the severity of the offense and any associated criminal activities, such as underage drinking or drugs.

    However, “”double jeopardy”” isn’t just the second round of a television game show; it is foremost a fundamental legal protection guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to every American citizen.

    It seems to me that as a state-run institution, the UA is subjecting students already under the scrutiny and punishment of duly-appointed officers of the laws of Arizona, to a form of double jeopardy directly in conflict with the Fifth Amendment. One might argue that the university’s intent is merely one of diversion, such as with drug or alcohol offenses, but at least from cursory evidence, I would say this is not the case.

    With diversion programs, the state will often waive prosecution of an offense if a student completes a diversion program under the supervision of his school; thus the student isn’t punished twice.

    I would ask, is the university’s punishment in lieu of scrutiny and punishment by the city, or is it instead in addition to such action? This opinion is admittedly based only upon minimal observation, but from past experience and my knowledge of the university’s desperate attempts to maintain a good rapport in the community, I would ask if the constitutional rights of students aren’t being sacrificed upon the altar of community relations.

    I would caution the university to tread lightly in the enforcement of, or even reconsider, this new policy in a manner that would both protect the rights of surrounding business and homeowners, but also those of its students to due process and fairness in law. Without such things, our society would cease to function in a manner worthy of its ideals.

    Jacob Lauser
    UA alumnus

    Macs ‘useless’ to most computer users

    Apple computers may be the first choice for emo kids (Friday’s “”‘Thinking different’ no longer an Apple priority””), but for the mainstream technology consumer, Microsoft products provide the best computer experience for the greatest number of users.

    Buying Mac computers by some is seen as not supporting the “”man”” (i.e., Microsoft) because it is just a money-hungry corporation and corporations are the devil. As gaming has become the primary use for computers, Macs have become useless to most of the computer-using population; if you don’t believe me, try running “”Doom 3″” on a new Mac machine, and then try running it on a 2-year-old PC.

    Alex Hoogasian
    political science senior

    Don’t count these ‘Cats out

    In regard to Niall O’Connor’s reference to the UA lacking the “”moxie to win it all,”” (in Thursday’s “”UA basketball not worthy of ‘blind faith'””) history has shown us he is mistaken.

    Arizona won a national championship in 1997 and was the runner-up in 2001. Coach Olson has taken our ‘Cats to the Final Four four times. ESPN ranks the Arizona coaching job as one of the top 10 in the country and has even stated that this program could be one of the top five. (Just ask Gilbert Arenas, Luke Walton, Sean Elliott, Steve Kerr and many other former players.)

    I would also argue Coach Olson may be one of the most respected coaches in all of college basketball. He is a class act. Furthermore, we have had “”moxie”” and what I would term “”big game”” for decades.

    There is no blind faith in McKale Center. When the game is over, we win much more than we lose. This year’s team creates excitement on the court and if they get rolling, watch out! I totally appreciate Niall’s frustrations with recent losses. However, we are a young team, much like the 1997 team that finished fifth in the Pacific 10 Conference. That’s right, a fifth-place finish, then we win it all!

    Remember, the season is very long, and anything can happen. Bear down and support those ‘Cats!

    Keith Rocci
    UA alumnus

    Zona Zoo spam needs to stop

    The Zona Zoo administration this year is completely abusing its privilege to send mass e-mails to thousands of students on its Listserv. The lack of professionalism embarrasses us all. Please, Zona Zoo, stop spamming us!

    Ryan Moore
    mechanical engineering senior

    More to Discover
    Activate Search