Primaries are for parties

In Sam Wager’s Wednesday letter, “”Let independents vote in Arizona!”” Wager argues that all voters should have been allowed to cast votes in Tuesday’s presidential preference primary. Her claim directly testifies to how frequently there are misconceptions as to what a primary actually is. A primary is not a popular election. Rather, it is one of several different potential mechanisms that a party uses to select its candidate for any given office. People who choose to belong to a political party, because they share similar ideological beliefs and policy preferences, select (yes, by ballot) who they would best like to represent them for the general election. If you wish to participate in the Republican or Democratic party’s primary, yes, you should actually have to belong to that party. Why should people who do not choose to belong to the party have any say in selecting the nominee? Simply stated, if you don’t want to join the club, then logically, you aren’t in the club.

Furthermore, Wager argues that “”Political parties should exist to serve the American people.”” While that is a somewhat vague statement, I actually agree, albeit in a sharply different manner. Political parties indeed should, and in fact do, serve the American people: They provide the most favored candidates of all the prominent political ideologies. In reality, any individual who does not adhere to the same beliefs as whatever party would only be performing a disservice to America by voting in the party’s primary and thus blurring the general election choices. And don’t forget, as Senator (Joe) Lieberman proved just a year ago, anyone is free to run as an independent.

Blake Rebling
senior majoring in economics and political science

Sexual editor doesn’t care about you

I am writing to express my frank revulsion at the way your “”sexual editor”” handled Tuesday’s inquiry (“”Sexual Editor”” 2/5) regarding sex change operations. The utter failure of this editor to do any research beyond a quick Google search and an aborted phone call after 10 minutes on hold (did class start?) further accentuates the fact that they really don’t care about bringing valuable information to a person who is clearly in a confused state about their sexuality and personality as a whole. All (the) “”sexual editor”” seems to care about is a vapid attempt to sound witty and emulate the style of sexual health columnist Dan Savage. Yet again, “”Sexual Editor”” has provided potentially damaging advice, ridiculing a person who came to them as a source of information for the entertainment of others. I urge the Wildcat to find someone who has some greater understanding of sexual health issues, straight or LGBT, than your average college student and someone who has the tact and common decency to approach these matters with a bit of respect. This individual clearly lacks these qualities.

Joshua Harrison
human language technology graduate student

Thanks for voting, Wildcats!

As we all know, Super Tuesday is one of the most important days for voters to get out to the polls. Sadly, many often let their chance to influence society slip away without notice. That’s exactly why the Students for Arizona Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) teamed up with Associated Students of the University of Arizona and Arizona Students’ Association to encourage student participation and ensure that the voices of UA students are heard. In the spirit of change, the three organizations labored on the UA Mall Tuesday assisting students to find their poll locations and encouraging them to vote in Arizona’s primary. PIRG students also conducted a campus preliminary poll to measure Wildcats’ support of the candidates. Over 200 students placed a token of support for their candidate on our giant poll board. Democratic Senator Barack Obama enjoyed a landslide triumph over Senator Hillary Clinton with 85 votes to her 37. The victor on the red side was was Ron Paul who lead the republican nomination with 36 votes. Arizona Senator John McCain came in second with only 19 votes. PIRG would like to thank all the students who participated in the poll and all of you out there who exercised your civic duty at your polling places Tuesday.

Brian Mori
Students for Arizona PIRG

Anti-Scientology posters around campus

You might have heard that there was once a group of people that set out to publicly destroy a religion through propaganda, rallies and other means.

History will record that this group was not condemned for their hostile attack, not at first anyway, and in fact they were cheered on by many. But what happened when the faithful of this targeted religion refused to give up their beliefs? Were they taken to the gas chambers? We don’t know, because history hasn’t gotten there yet.

See, I’m not talking about the Nazi’s and their treatment of the Jews. I’m talking about a movement to destroy Scientology which has hit our campus.

Yesterday anti-scientology posters glared at me as I walked through the tunnel to the Eller College of Management building. The posters called for support in a nationwide rally against Scientology on Feb. 10, claiming that Scientology is not a religion, but really a dangerous cult (for the record, our government HAS declared Scientology a recognized religion). The nationwide Feb. 10 rally is being organized by a group called Anonymous that has set out to “”destroy (Scientology) … for (their) enjoyment.””

As a member of the Jewish community here on campus, I am deeply disturbed by this movement, because I know where it leads to. I have an old friend who only survived Auschwitz because World War II ended.

Now, I realize that the anti-scientologists might sound persuasive, but so did the Nazis in their own time. Remember that Scientology IS a federally recognized religion and it’s followers, who have been free in this country to believe whatever religion they want to believe, also deserve to live free from harassment. Personally, I think that freedom of choice, including religion, is one of the things that is so great about America, don’t you agree?

Garrett Lebby
business management senior

Mendenhall has ‘complete lack of understanding’

I would like to address the concerns that Connor Mendenhall had expressed in “”Abolish student government: The case against ASUA”” (Yesterday). The idea of government in ASUA is meant to be seen as a group of students “”of, by, and for”” the UA community, to enrich and heighten the college experience.

It would seem that Mr. Mendenhall is addressing the wrong issue when describing ASUA as illegitimate due to voter turnout for elections. The thought shouldn’t be that because voter registration is low ASUA isn’t doing a good job, rather, why isn’t the student body concerned with those who represent them? Why not turn the efforts to urging the student body to vote and becoming aware of what is occurring on campus?

Mr. Mendenhall seems to have a complete lack of understanding how much of an impact other programs and services have on campus. The Student Health and Advisory Council (SHAC) works to develop programs to promote better health among students at the UA. This year SHAC has worked with the Susan G. Komen, and holds its annual “”Run for your Life”” 5K Run/Walk to fundraise for organizations such as UNICEF. Spring Fling, the largest student-run carnival in the nation, allows student volunteers to fundraise for their organizations. Arizona Students’ Association has been working to freeze tuition rates, and encouraging students to practice their right to vote. The Women’s Resource Center has implemented SafeWalk, which provides an alternative to waiting for SafeRide. As the pride alliance director I can account for multiple students who have contacted me as a resource for the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) community. Questions and fears about their sexuality can be overwhelming and having this resource on campus gives them a direction in where they can go. These are only a few of the great programs that are organized through ASUA and available for students on campus. Our goal, as directors, is that the student body utilizes these resources on campus; however, we cannot force the students to participate.

Clubs and organizations are a big part of the campus for students to find others with similar interests and to find a sense of belonging. If we were to allocate funds by number of members per club then we can’t ensure that the funds are being used for the advancement of the clubs, issues similar to the case with Reece would be more frequent and funds wasted.

The senators work year-around in order to make the campus a more enriching environment for the community at the UA. Senator Dustin Cox organized “”A-Town,”” a program that works on social justice issues. Participants meet multiple times a week developing action plans to ensure the UA community is more inclusive. Senator Amanda Collins has been working to help prevent bike theft, working with the University of Arizona Police Department and Parking and Transportation Services on campus.

Mr. Mendenhall seems to have no real understanding of the true workings of ASUA and the many other important organizations on campus that we work with. His “”humble”” assumption of abolishing ASUA is not only based on minimal evidence and support but would be a great loss to the UA campus and would never be the same. For those of you who are reading this please visit asua.arizona.edu to learn more about the exciting programs and services ASUA offers to the entire UA community.

Chase Sutton
sociology sophomore
pride alliance director for ASUA

Password ‘strength’ arbitrary

Last Thursday, Evan Lisull in “”Nanny State U.”” criticized the university’s unnecessary and unwanted intrusions into our lives outside of the classroom. Truly,
taking a note from the smothering hug of our maternalistic government that claims to crush us for our own good, our university has created quite an annoyance with the mandatory NetID password change.

However, Mr. Lisull missed out on the excruciating experience of making a new password now and the implications of such a defiance of the Geneva Convention and general torture ethics. The new change rates the “”strength”” of your new password on four levels: too weak, weak, strong and best. How often you are required to change your password is dependent on its strength. The first strength will not allow you to use the desired password; the next ones must be changed in 45 days, 180 days and 360 days respectively.

To reach the highest strength with a password you can remember is quite a feat and could require special characters, a mix of uppercase and lowercase letters and a smorgasbord of numbers. To give you an example, the entire preamble to the Constitution is too weak. Bank security numbers don’t really work. A strong one is “”GEOG251ROCKS.”” The best ones include long phrases with a ridiculous mix such as “”Forget your password?”” To be honest, you’ll probably be better off with street
addresses, entire sports trivia statements and titles of obnoxious movie sequels.

Daniel Greenberg
political science junior