The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

66° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat


    Mail Bag

    The dark side of the UA

    I am a Wildcat at heart, but all year I have been grinding my teeth about some of the annoying things that go on at our campus. It’s time for me to tell everyone what they are already thinking. The following are the three most annoying things on the UA campus:

    Ugg Boots: Yes, Ugg boots. Why do females insist on wearing these boots in the Tucson heat? It’s the same thing as drinking coffee in 100-degree weather – huh? Now look, if your nails are not painted, it’s OK; guys don’t pay attention to that anyway. Please, please, please – I don’t want to see another pair of Ugg boots on with shorts or, even worse, a bikini.

    Dance Dance Revolution kids: These kids keep to themselves, so why do I bring it up? If anyone has gone down to the Cellar to eat, you could find yourself swallowed by the Disney version of South Central Los Angeles. God forbid a cord gets pulled and they start DDRing on innocent patrons of the cellar. I am a big guy, but that even scares me. Now I will admit that I have stopped to watch, but it’s more in the way a person watches a car wreck to see the brutality of the situation.

    Bicyclists on North University Boulevard: The most annoying thing at the university is a bicyclist. If you haven’t walked down University and happened to go by Starbucks in the morning, beware. You may find yourself surrounded by 50 middle-aged gray-haired men in biker shorts sipping what else? Coffee in 100-degree weather. You could hope to be blind but that would not help. The clicking of the hundreds of pairs of shoes on the cement is like the nevermore crow calling for your sanity.

    Here’s the solution: If you have a dog, walk it by Starbucks and let it do its duty. When the bicyclists step in it, coated shoes don’t make noise. The other solution is to start a petition to call for a dress code on North University Boulevard – no biker shorts. Good luck with finals.

    Cody Schuster accounting senior

    The ‘fun facts’ of gun control

    In response to Alex R.J. GutiǸrrez: Like many people that argue against concealed carrying, you bring up scenarios that just don’t occur.

    For instance, I’m sure that whenever the nearly 90,000 concealed-weapon permit holders in Arizona get cut off in traffic, they stop to shoot someone. There are nearly 15,000 permit holders in Pima County alone. (Fun fact: As of 2003 Department of Justice statistics, the Tucson Police Department only had 960 officers.)

    In response to Lindsay Wygant: The questions contained in your letter lead me to believe that you have absolutely no idea how “”concealed carry”” works in Arizona ð- or anywhere else. There is a difference between carrying a firearm for self-defense and vigilantism.

    People who obtain concealed-carry permits go through state-mandated training in which laws regarding deadly force are discussed. Applicants for such a permits also go through rigorous background checks by the Arizona Department of Public Safety.

    If someone with a concealed weapon is involved in a shooting, they are subject to prosecution by the district attorney. So if they were, in fact, not justified in their shooting, they would be subject to jail time. Counseling can be paid for by any individual if they feel they need it.

    And in regards to Noah Pollock: I realize that you, like most Americans, think that it is the duty of the police to respond to your call and defend or protect you, but it isn’t. There is precedent from all over the country.

    For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia, the court said that it is a “”fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”” See also Riss v. City of New York, Keane v. City of Chicago, etc. Also another fun fact: The University of Arizona Police Department has 52 officers. The UA has about 35,000 students.

    Nick Lincowski history junior

    Moral relativism makes murder easy

    Matt Stone, in his April 26 article “”Happiness is a warm gun,”” suggests that we search Seung-hui Cho’s psychology and our own culture for the reasoning behind the Virginia Tech massacre. Interestingly, the answers to Matt’s questions can be found in his own editorial.

    When you consider the popularity of the beliefs that Matt articulated – that it is not the real existence of good and evil but instead “”semantics and cultural mythology””that determine whether acts are right or wrong – the massacre makes total sense.

    Matt wonders “”What if I had been Cho?”” I answer: You very nearly are. Simply put, there are two differences between Cho and most people that ascribe to these beliefs: one, that Cho took “”postmodern moral relativist”” thought to its “”logical”” conclusion, that anything can be justified based on circumstances, and two, Cho built up enough rage that, to him, it was circumstantially enough to justify the killing of 32 innocent people.

    What’s very unfortunate about this horrible incident is that it might not make people search the things that are so wrong in their own life philosophy to find what went wrong with Cho. They look at gun laws, the media and even Cho’s psychological makeup, which they believe has little or no relation to their own. And meanwhile, things like the Virginia Tech massacre continue to happen.

    It’s not until people realize that there are concrete standards of good and evil that are readily available to them, and even more importantly, start living out of the good, that acts like this will be made impossible.

    Kelsea Shuldes anthropology sophomore

    Don’t ridicule support for the troops

    I was really disappointed with Shane Ham’s column “”Attention pro-war students: Uncle Sam wants you”” in the Arizona Daily Wildcat. Not only does Ham make severe generalizations but he also holds an arbitrary viewpoint regarding patriotic people of America.

    It is unfair and immature to group troop supporters in specific categories. Just because someone supports the troops does not prove that he or she likes the idea of the war in Iraq. I have encountered many that support the military for risking their lives for America, yet lack support for the war itself. If someone supports the war yet does not enlist, it does not mean “”their mouths are bigger than their balls.””

    Before Ham improves his sophomoric vocabulary, he should seriously think about the weight of his words. Would Ham say this to a physically-handicapped individual who supports the troops yet is obviously unable to join the military because of his or her health? And what about the select few college students who have children they want to be there for? Are they “”selfish little cowards”” for not wanting to leave their children behind? I know that is a common sacrifice for military men, but most take that into consideration before going to war anyway.

    It is both pretentious and ridiculous that Ham is convinced that joining the military is the only legitimate way to support the troops. As a member of the College Republicans, I know for a fact that our group has contributed to the military. We had our own Support the Troops week with representatives of different branches, sent cards and letters to the troops, raised money and promoted overall troop support.

    Despite our thanks to the military, I suppose we are just “”selfish little cowards”” for enjoying college and being thankful for what we have.

    Laura Donovan freshman majoring in communication and creative writing

    More to Discover
    Activate Search