Classical music good as it is

This letter is in response to Justyn Dillingham’s WildLife column Nov. 2 about classical music. In it, Dillingham wonders why younger people don’t attend classical music concerts and says that maybe if they were altered to accommodate dancing, it would be more appealing. I couldn’t disagree more. Classical music and its concerts are fine the way they are, and that is why they are “”classic””: timeless, like classic fashion or a classic car. One of the reasons young people don’t attend such events could be their obsessed crusade to disassociate themselves from anything that is “”old”” or as simple as upbringing. If they are rarely exposed to it, they might not appreciate it, much less attend a live performance.

But have no fear, Dillingham, for there is a “”hip”” alternative for younger listeners called Symphonic Metal. “”Symphonic Metal”” is as much as an umbrella term as “”classical music,”” as it includes gothic/death/melodic and of course symphonic metal, just like classical music encompasses Baroque, classical and romantic music. This subgenre of metal includes bands that infuse their music with classical orchestration, opera choirs and soloists. This is a perfect blend of “”modern”” and “”classical”” that any metalhead, classical or just music fan can enjoy. Thus one can still enjoy the peacefulness of Beethoven in a music hall and can also jump around and bang their heads at a Rhapsody “”concerto.””

Angel del Valle
religious studies junior

Graduate students oppose CCIT fee

I do not appreciate personal attacks. And, in particular, I did not appreciate the statements and insinuations of Hale Thomas that I am dishonest, irresponsible and ignorant, in his letter published in Tuesday’s Arizona Daily Wildcat (“”Student technology fee important, useful””). I also don’t much appreciate when someone misrepresents my views or says that I said something that I did not say. Regardless, I am happy to engage in thoughtful discussion on almost any topic. Like most UA graduate students, I am not in support of the proposed $50 increase in the Center for Computing and Information Technology fee. I have my reasons for opposing the fee, and I have a pretty good idea as to the reasons why other students share my position.

I oppose the fee for two reasons. First, the price tag is too high for what students can expect to get. The proposed plan is to fund wireless access at a cost of $50 per student this year, plus a cost of $100 per student for the next three years. If you ask students to pay for wireless and tell them the cost, then you find that they don’t want to pay. Aside from this “”consumer perspective,”” I do not think that wireless access should be a funding priority for the UA. UA graduate students seem to share my view, as they ranked “”wireless access in UA buildings, classrooms and outdoor areas”” eighth out of 10 possible areas where UA resources could be directed.

Hale Thomas claims that the strong negative reaction of graduate students to the proposed CCIT fee (84.5 percent of respondents to a Graduate and Professional Student Council survey said that they oppose it) is due to the fact that “”respondents had little to no information about the greater context of the fee increase.”” While I agree that many of the respondents didn’t have a lot of information about the proposed fee, they do know what wireless is (and whether they would like to use it), and they are able to balance the benefits that they would receive against the proposed cost to them, namely $50 this year and $300 more over the next three years.

As it turns out, the more that have I found out about the proposed fee, the more I don’t like it. I am particularly concerned by the fact that the planned cost of campuswide wireless skyrocketed this summer from 6.5 million to 10 million in the course of a few months. It strikes me that the increasing cost could reflect a strategy to make the price tag for the wireless project match the size of the fee increase that the Arizona Board of Regents is expecting CCIT to propose. If CCIT had been concerned to gauge the amount that students would be willing to pay for wireless access, I suspect that they would have found a less expensive campus wireless plan.

Paul Thorn
GPSC president
philosophy graduate student

LGBT community also concerned with commitment

I am responding to Bruce Pixton’s Monday letter (“”Prop. 107 would strengthen Arizona””), in which he wrote that Arizona would be best strengthened by “”a husband and wife committed to raising a good family”” as opposed to “”two individuals with very little commitment at all.”” I am most definitely in favor of two committed people raising a good family. However, as a queer woman with many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender friends, I am extremely offended by the implication that only heterosexual couples are capable of doing this. Commitment and family values are not traits limited to straight people. I happen to know of several homosexual couples whose relationships have lasted many years and still remain strong and loving. Moreover, research shows that children of gay parents are generally just as happy, healthy and loved as those of straight parents. Instead of making incorrect and quite hurtful generalizations, I would encourage Bixton to get to know people within the LGBT community, and perhaps then he will see that we are not so different after all.

Magdalena Escobedo
secondary education junior

Environmental tobacco smoke not as dangerous as presented

I write this in response to Jeremy Palmer’s letter on October 31, 2006. While I do not blame Mr. Palmer for his skewed views on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS), I feel it my duty to supply more thorough data and input on his argument for banning public smoking and subsequently being exposed to ETS. First off, I would like to state that the largest study in the world done to date, which was rigorously peer reviewed and finally published in the May 17, 2003 issue of British Medical Journal, found no increased risk of lung cancer or heart disease associated with second-hand smoke exposure.

I could just stop there, but I say we throw that out and keep ourselves in the sheltered world of America’s politically influenced science. So then, according to the report you cited released by the Surgeon General, “”Nonsmokers exposed to second hand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent.”” First off, this vague assessment of “”exposure”” at home or work would not include your whimpering over a “”smoldering butt.”” According to Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health and long time opponent of smoking, “”Where elevated risks of lung cancer are observed [from ETS], the elevations are relatively small – and are the result of high-dose, long-term exposures.”” Additionally, she adds, “”While one might think that a 30% increased risk translates into a person having a one in three chance of developing the disease, this is not the case at all. A 30% increase in lung cancer in a nonsmoker refers to increasing a risk that is very low to start with to a risk slightly higher. By contrast, a regular cigarette smoker increases his or her risk of lung cancer by over l,000%.””

Dr. Richard Doll, the scientist who first linked active smoking to lung cancer, said in a 2001 radio interview, “”The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn’t worry me.”” Furthermore, all of this hype betrays the fundamental tenet of toxicology: “”Only the dose makes the poison.”” So what’s my solution? Try this: Stop worrying about how you’re going to die and start worrying about how you’re going to live. But if you really insist on worrying about something, how about the 30,000 people annually killed by car emissions (American Lung Association) and the 40,000+ killed by car collisions each year in the U.S. Maybe we should ban cars from being on or anywhere near campus

Karl Kox
UA alumnus

Do not let seats go empty at ASU game

Saturday, November 25, 2006 there is a football game against the evil ASU Sun Devils. According to the Arizona Daily Star last Sunday, there were ONLY 1500 student tickets sold for this game. Is everyone leaving town? If the student section is not sold out by November 17th, the tickets will be sold to anyone even ASU fans/students. Please do not let this happen.

Kathy Audelo
UA alumna, Class of 1977