The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

87° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

Soundbites: Sept. 16

Daily Wildcat columnists sound off on offbeat news and strange encounters.

Too fast, too curious

I recently stumbled upon an article in the Tucson Weekly archives, mysteriously titled “”How to Beat a Photo Radar Ticket!”” Though the article came from way back in 2007, the headline intrigued me. While the state of Arizona announced it would discontinue its photo radar program in July, the City of Tucson did not follow suit; its red light and speeding vans and cameras are still going strong.

At first glance, I was disgusted with the column. It cultivated within me distaste for the blatant disregard for personal responsibility staring me in the face. But then I slowed down.

The article actually pointed out the relevant fact that “”tickets that are mailed to violators don’t meet (a) legal standard … the city has only 120 days to serve you, so if you can dodge the process server for about four months, the ticket is dismissed.”” Neat.

The rest of the column suggested methods to trick the government into not fining you for breaking the law. Let me spell out my heavy-handed moralizing for you: If you’re willing to break the law, at least be willing to accept the consequences. Show a little character.

More importantly, it’s pragmatic not to speed in a town with 30-35 MPH signs on all the traffic-heavy streets next to the school swarming with cops looking for traffic violations. Just leave a little earlier — it’s really not that difficult. Unless …

Are you are participating in the one activity so sick-nasty that all my regard for personal responsibility and traffic law go out the window? I hope so. Two words, friends:

Drift racing.

Anyway, I guess the moral is that unless you receive texts asking why other people don’t “”EVER C U DRIFT,”” you shouldn’t speed.

— Remy Albillar is a senior majoring in English and creative writing.

Parents of young children: skip the frappuccino

A good friend recently shared with me an occurrence she witnessed at Starbucks. A mother ordered her 5-year-old a caramel Frappuccino. The employee responded, “”Are you sure you don’t want to get her a hot chocolate or a tea?”” The mother answered, “”No. She gets it all the time. She loves them.”” My friend then posed the question: Is this child abuse?

Legally, no, it’s not. However, it is certainly poor parenting. If “”all the time”” refers to anything more than once a week, this is excessive. If a parent establishes this extremely innutritious habit, then she sets the child up for failure from a health standpoint.

Is this child doomed? No.

Is she more likely to be overweight, and incur the other health-related risks associated with being overweight? Yes.

We can hope that this parent is choosing this course of child rearing out of either ignorance or convenience, but neither of these sources of justification makes her judgments immune to criticism.

These sorts of spectacles at local eateries and watering holes prove extremely disheartening. There is nothing wrong with occasional “”treats”” for children, as incentives for good behavior, or even just for fun, but a consistent indulgence that results in a life of unhealthy choices will lead to negative issues for the child in the future.

— Tyler Quillin is a senior majoring in philosophy and English.

He is also the academic affairs executive director for the Associated Students of the University of Arizona.

More to Discover
Activate Search