The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

86° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

    Wildcat columnists take on the issues – big and small – that shape our world.

    If the shoe fits…

    British secondary school teacher Andrew McLuskey was fired last week for allegedly saying “”most suicide bombers are Muslim.”” The politically correct have heralded the move, while others point out that the offensive statement has a ring of truth to it. Should McCluskey have been fired?

    Though it was probably a dumb thing to say at a predominantly Muslim school, it’s difficult to see why McCluskey’s statement was worthy of losing him his job. According to a BBC report, all he said was that “”most suicide bombers are Muslim.”” It doesn’t appear that McLuskey meant anything against the Islamic faith; all he did was state an apparent truth. In the same way, teachers aren’t fired for stating that most medieval inquisitors were Christian, nor should they be. Teachers shouldn’t have to worry about the PC police every time they open their mouths.

    – David Francis is a pre-business sophomore.

    Let’s face it: Everyone is at fault here. First, McLuskey is a fool for making this statement to begin with; his poorly phrased (though true) statement will surely exacerbate tensions with the Muslim minority. Second, the students themselves are a bunch of weeping, whiny crybabies. McLuskey’s statement is correct and is relevant to a religious education class; these kids are raising hell for its own sake. No one should feel offended by a statement of the truth. Finally, the school board is clearly knuckling under to external pressures, exposing themselves as a group of spineless, yellow-bellied wimps. It’s a good thing people never act rashly here on the other side of the pond. Oh, wait…

    – Taylor Kessinger is a sophomore majoring in physics, math and philosophy.


    Rigging oil

    Exxon Mobil Corp. announced this week that it had another year of record-breaking profits, making a whopping $4.5 million an hour for a year-end total of $39.5 billion. Some Democrats have already cried foul, saying that Congress should impose a “”windfall tax”” on oil companies that make excessive profits. Is this the right idea, or should Congress stay away from the Exxon piggy bank?

    It’s all about money, at least to Exxon-Mobil, which was making record-breaking profits – over $4 million an hour. With the gap between the rich and poor continuing to grow and the American middle class growing smaller and smaller, Exxon-Mobil executives and shareholders continue to pad their wallets with profits from people who are struggling to make ends meet. Sure, it’s not the company’s responsibility, but it seems like they could cut the American public some slack, lower gas prices, and still make a ton of money. For me, it’s a slap in the face to know that while I can only afford enough gas to get to school, executives and shareholders are going to be taking vacations using my money.

    – Joyanna Jones is a journalism senior.

    Sure, $39.5 billion sounds excessive. But saying that oil companies don’t deserve their profits suffers from the same fallacy as arguing that basketball players don’t deserve their salaries. Suppliers deserve what we’re willing to pay.What you really mean when you say oil companies shouldn’t make so much money is that Americans shouldn’t be willing to pay so much for gasoline – which, of course, we are. Oil companies are simply supplying a product that consumers demand. If you’re serious about reducing oil profits, don’t drive. Or better yet, trust the economists and support a gas tax. Reducing consumers’ demand for gasoline is the only effective way to force suppliers to lower their prices – and, importantly, it doesn’t involve redistributing any money.

    – Stan Molever is a philosophy senior.

    More to Discover
    Activate Search