The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

100° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

    Mail Bag

    U.S. a representative democracy for a reason

    I am writing in response to a letter to the editor on Prop. 107 (from Alex Hoogasian Oct. 12), however, I am not going to attack the writer’s stance on Prop. 107, but rather the rhetoric he uses in his attack. Hoogasian claims that “”letting the people decide is what America was founded on,”” but any senior political science major should understand that this is most certainly not the case. The United States has a very special breed of democracy known as a representative democracy or republic, in which the people elect officials to represent them.

    The founding fathers picked this form of government over a straight democracy to prevent mob rule. Our system allows for certain inalienable rights, rights that every person can claim. A straight democracy allows only for civic rights, rights that must be granted by the majority. If majority rule becomes the norm in this country, then we will lose all that is great about our nation.

    I received my ballot for the November election a few days ago, and I’m disturbed by the number of propositions to be decided directly by the people of Arizona. We elect the Legislature to represent us. Their job is to debate and discuss new propositions, and to solve problems. We allow them to represent us because they understand the issues better than the majority of the public. With so many propositions on the ballot, it is hard to believe that the Arizona state Legislature is doing its job. For this reason, I am voting “”no”” on Prop. 302, which proposes a significant pay increase for them.

    Geoff Mitchell
    cancer biology graduate student

    Dems. can’t attract ‘values voters’ with spiritual window dressing

    In his Monday column, “”Keeping the Faith,”” Damion LeeNatali made some erroneous statements regarding religiously motivated voters. It is true that people who are guided by moral convictions have been very influential in recent elections. But it is foolish to think that these value voters on “”the religious right”” are voting only out of a sense of belonging to the Christian majority. LeeNatali argues that if only the Democrats would start talking about religion, then everything would be OK.

    His analysis stems directly from the supposition that “”values voters”” are willing to “”abandon economic interests for narrowly defined religious issues”” just to feel accepted. This is totally ludicrous because it implies that the vast majority of people really think the Democrats have trumped every other political party on the economic solutions. Even more ridiculous, though is that his argument gives no credence to the individual voter’s beliefs. This argument implies that most of these voters do not really have any religious convictions. The fact is, you are what you believe and these voters vote accordingly. No matter how much the Democratic Party tries to turn religious, it will never be able to reach the “”values voters.”” Before it can reach these voters, it must first acknowledge that these people really believe that abortion is wrong and that homosexualty should not be afforded the same equality as heterosexuality. The Democrats will never be able to attract these “”values voters”” because they do not share their beliefs, and no amount of spiritual window-dressing on the part of the Democratic Party is going to change that.

    Joseph Morgan
    non-degree-seeking graduate student

    Republicans offer security

    It is obvious that the war in Iraq is an issue that is on the minds of all Americans this election, and rightly so. To those who are skeptical of the Iraq war, I would argue that it is imperative that you learn from the lessons history has taught us in order to secure our future. Now, I am no history expert, but it seems pretty clear to me that history has taught us that it is beneficial to confront an eminent threat while it is in its beginning stages rather than wait until confrontation is absolutely necessary. By no means am I asserting that the Iraq War has been executed flawlessly. Obviously, it has not, but we cannot lose our will to take the fight to the enemy before the enemy brings the fight to us. We must continue to conduct this war based on the advice of the top American military commanders and not cave in to the Democrats’ only strategy regarding the war, which is to cut and run.

    Setting timetables for our withdrawal from Iraq will only encourage the terrorists to wait until we have left to continue their violence. The president has said time and again that we will not remain in Iraq a day longer than it takes to complete our mission. Nobody enjoys being involved in this war, but despite what some people suggest, it is a war of necessity, not choice.

    Democracy is under an all-out assault by islamofascism, and it is our most solemn duty to preserve, protect and defend it. History will judge President Bush much less harshly than we are judging him today because history will realize that Bush was looking out for America’s future, even at the cost of his political present. Defeating islamofascism and crushing the evil jihadist movement that strives to kill innocent Americans is the calling of our time, and we must complete the mission, no matter the cost.

    I strongly urge voters that value safety, security and prosperity to help maintain the Republican majority in Congress. A nuclear-armed North Korea has unfortunately become a reality, and Iran is likely to follow in the near future. Do we want to address them with “”sensitivity,”” as John Kerry would suggest, or do we want to confront them in a pragmatic, no-nonsense fashion in order to ensure American security? The choice is yours. Choose wisely.

    Ry Ellison
    pre-physiology freshman

    UA e-mail needs better filters

    As I have been checking e-mail for the past few months, probably bordering on six, I have noticed an exponential increase in the amount of spam e-mail in my UA e-mail account. My only guess as to why that may be true is that, as is true with dorm addresses, the university either gives away or sells the addresses of students. Given the fact that I am required to have a university e-mail, and that by and large, professors use only UA accounts to communicate with students, I am annoyed by this. I must sift through the countless spam e-mails to get to the important things.

    I am on student exchange to Towson University in Towson, Maryland, and their e-mail system is nothing like the UA’s. I have not received one piece of spam e-mail in that account since I created it in April. So it is not simply something that is bound to happen, or I would get some in that account, too. Sure, this may seem like a trivial thing. I have to delete five e-mails to get to the one important one. But the principle of the matter is that my information – namely, my e-mail address – is being given out without my knowledge or consent. I may be wrong. If that is true, I would wholeheartedly stand corrected; in fact, I would love to be proven wrong. It would help me regain some lost respect for the UA. But until then, I am disappointed in the UA yet again. I had to put up with junk mail in the dorms, and now junk in a private, university e-mail account.

    Janne Perona
    criminal justice junior

    U.S. has everything to do with Israeli war

    Bethany Fourmy claimed in a recent letter (“”Bush not responsible for problems in Lebanon”” on Oct. 12) that Lebanon started the war with Israel and that there is no connection between the Bush regime and that conflict. Both claims are false. Israel has long been what Henry Kissinger called “”a land-based aircraft carrier”” for the U.S., serving it and acting in its interests. The U.S. gives Israel billions of dollars in military aid every year – the grenade thrown in Sowid’s house might literally have been stamped “”Made in the USA.”” The U.S. had everything to do with the war – it is part of the “”birth of a new Middle East,”” as Condoleezza Rice put it. The U.S. even expedited the shipment of new weapons when it became clear the war wasn’t going as planned.

    Seymour Hersh revealed in New Yorker magazine that Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah (and shared it with Bush Administration officials), well before the July 12 capture of the Israeli soldiers. There had been substantial, high-level discussions between Israel and U.S. military and White House officials over an attack on Lebanon to be “”triggered”” by some event. A U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel revealed, “”The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits. Why oppose it? We’ll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.”” And according to Hersh, the Israeli attack was specifically designed to destroy civilian infrastructure in order to convince Lebanon’s large Christian and Sunni populations to turn against Hezbollah. In other words, it was what would be called terrorism if it were directed toward Israel or the US. In this respect, Israel (and the U.S.) were behaving as usual.

    Greg Knehans
    political science graduate student

    More to Discover
    Activate Search