Wildcat ad unfairly portrays Elvis Presley

Normally I enjoy your paper. It’s one of the best campus papers I’ve seen, and most days, it is more entertaining than the city paper. But yesterday, I was dismayed by the unfair, stereotypical portrayal of America’s King of Rock and Roll, Elvis Presley, on page 13.

Elvis died before probably any of the newspaper staff was even born (even I was five years too late), but that is no excuse to continue the negative images so often brushed off as “”innocent fun.””

Most people do not realize the great contributions Presley made to society beyond his music. He gave thousands of dollars to charities throughout his life, from the March of Dimes to St. Jude. In 1973, Elvis performed a concert in Hawaii, most famous for being broadcast via satellite, to over one billion viewers, but what most don’t remember is that the show was a benefit for the Kui Lee Cancer Fund, and Presley raised over $75,000 in the “”pay what you can”” admission.

Of particular interest to UA students is another concert Elvis performed in Hawaii — the one that helped get the USS Arizona Memorial built. His 1961 show in Hawaii raised over $65,000 for the fundraising effort, which had stalled until the publicity Elvis brought.

As for the offending photo, it is not an accurate portrayal of the man — it was only the last year of his life that Elvis’ weight and health got out of control.

For most all of his 42 years, Elvis was active, played sports and was rarely sedentary. In the era before 24/7 fitness places, he had a raquetball court built on his Graceland property so he could play and workout any time of the day. His appetite for southern fried foods is legendary, but it is greatly exaggerated. It is simply wrong to continue the myth of the “”fat Elvis.”” It is not only an affront to the memory of Elvis, but it is also offensive to overweight Americans and also Southerners. I expect better from a campus newspaper as high quality as the Wildcat.

Candice C. Curtis

Graceland tour operations lead, 2004-2009

Drinking laws reminiscent of Prohibition

A day does not pass without a student receiving a minor in possession.

How can this law be deemed valid when it is intentionally and frequently disregarded by almost half of the individuals it is intended to manage?

In almost every part, but one, our government has determined that 18 year olds are capable of assuming the rights and responsibilities of adult citizenship.

When we choose not to give adult status with respect to responsible consumption of alcohol, we sign onto our 18 to 20 year olds a superannuated childhood, without the advantage of parental guidance.

If the intention of the law is to decrease driving while intoxicated, then enforce stricter driving laws. However, if we fully believe that our 18 year olds are not capable of responsible behavior, raise the age of majority.

In sum, consistency is a must. Adults need to be allowed drink responsibility. Prohibition doesn’t work.

Jonathan Messing

Pre-business junior