The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

73° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat



    Columnist is out of touch

    Matt Stone’s Monday column “”Homosexuality + GOP = hypocrisy”” is a glimmering jewel of colossal ignorance concerning the GOP, its base and the issue of homosexuality in politics in general. His thesis: Republicans are hypocrites because we believe that homosexuality is wrong morally; however, we have people who are Republicans in Congress and elsewhere who are homosexual – thus, the paradox. There are three essential problems with this idea.

    First: Republicanism has never been exclusive to socially conservative people. For many years now, there have been people like Jim Kolbe who have been labeled by Republicans as a “”Rhino-Republican”” as well as those who agree with his social stances within the party. We are a pluralistic party. This is not new.

    Secondly: There are many people who are conservative who are also Democrats.

    When Prop. 107 is voted on Nov. 7, there will be many people voting for it who are Democrats, namely the Catholic Hispanic community. This vast minority is socially conservative and largely Democrat and plays a large role in the Democratic base; however, Stone is not calling the Demo-base hypocritical. Rather unfair, I think.

    Thirdly: The political structure for our nation is too complex to generalize, and every election has elements in it that cause people to do things that they do not necessarily want to do. For example, the Congressional race in Raǧl Grijálva’s district (in which I live) has Ron Drake running for the Republicans. Drake opposes Prop. 107, which I agree with. This, however, does not mean that I will not vote. I believe that Grijálva is much worse of a candidate, so I will vote for Drake. Get the point?

    That was a horrible column and lacked reason. He is out of touch.

    John Winchester
    history senior

    Olson’s response to fan a disappointment

    I am compelled to write by my profound disappointment in Lute Olson, who recently demonstrated to me extreme rudeness and ingratitude. I arrived at the UofA Bookstore Friday night, having just purchased his new book, in hopes of getting it signed by him as a gift to my husband. I arrived a few minutes after 6 and happened to see Lute in the parking lot as he arrived for the scheduled book signing. I unloaded my two young girls from the car and headed to stand in line, looking forward to meeting this local celebrity who is known for his grace and kind spirit. To my surprise, I was notified by a bookstore staff member that Lute had requested no one else be allowed to join the line for the signing, and we were turned away, unsigned book in hand.

    The line in the bookstore was by no means overflowing; we arrived within minutes of the scheduled start time; we purchased the book he was selling. We are obviously fans, or why would we have gone to the trouble? I am also a third-generation alumna with a sibling who currently attends the UA. I am shocked that anyone would treat their own customers, the very people he is trying to sell his book to, this way.

    If I wrote a book, I would certainly stay and sign for my readers as long as they were willing to stand in line to meet me. If time did not allow this, then passing out numbers in line for the opportunity to get a signature would have seemed both more fair and polite. As it is, I will be returning my copy, and I will think less of Lute in the future. I find his ingratitude to his fans appalling.

    Tara Alexander
    Tucson resident

    There are many reasons for Starbucks’ success

    When I began to read Sam Feldman’s Tuesday column, “”Starbucks: Not my one-stop culture shop,”” I braced myself for a piece about how the corporate bully was stealing the lunch money of independent free-thinkers such as Espresso Art or CafǸ Paraiso. Though I was pleased that this wasn’t exactly the focus, I was still left disappointed. I’m glad Feldman wasn’t surprised to find students who enjoyed Starbucks while he was inside Starbucks, which is about as difficult as finding students who enjoy alcohol inside a bar.

    The greatest offense, however, was declaring Starbucks as the “”Wal-Mart of coffee shops.”” True, Starbucks and Wal-Mart are both international and revolutionary corporations, as are Disney, McDonald’s and even Jenny Craig.

    The difference between Starbucks and Wal-Mart is not only the caring and friendly attitude extended toward its customers, but to its employees as well. The employees, or “”partners,”” who comprise a Starbucks store are considered a family. A part-time partner at Starbucks can expect paid vacation and sick leave, stock options, a 401(k) plan and health benefits that can also be extended to homosexual and heterosexual unmarried couples. A part-time employee at Wal-Mart can look forward to a maximum of 28 hours of work per week and no benefits to speak of. While Wal-Mart’s employee turnover rate of 70 percent (compared to Starbucks’ 55 percent) is commonly attributed to lack of recognition and inadequate pay, the partners who comprise an individual Starbucks store call themselves a family. It is this gracious and caring attitude that Starbucks partners extend to the customers, not to mention the easily superior quality of the coffee, that can be attributed to the company’s success.

    And if they want to sell the music they play in the store, or recommend a book or movie, so be it.

    Alison Klemp
    theatre arts sophomore

    More to Discover
    Activate Search