The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

84° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat



    Prop. 107 initiative will hurt LGBT community

    While the UA students in the campus ministry I serve hold a variety of viewpoints, I am among those ELCA Lutheran Christians who welcome, affirm and celebrate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender couples, individuals and their families. We do this because our long reading of the whole and heart of the Christian Scriptures, especially as seen “”in context”” and through the lens of “”God’s gospel and justice in Christ,”” compels us to this view. We pray and work for the day when LGBT persons will no longer be barred from Fullness of Life, including marriage and/or civil unions with all the attending joys, rights and responsibilities. We personally believe the Prop. 107 initiative is a harmful idea, and should not be imposed on LGBT persons and straight allies. Thank you.

    Pastor Ron Rude
    Lutheran Campus Ministry

    Republicans do not offer security for America

    I am writing in response to Ry Ellison’s Thursday letter to the editor (“”Republicans offer security””), in which he claimed Republicans offer the best security for America and its values. In addition to overblown rhetoric, his letter drips with logical fallacies, the first of which is his assertion that the Democrats’ only strategy is to “”cut and run.”” It’s a severe danger to present the Iraq war in terms of either “”cut and run”” or “”stay the course.”” Our presence in Iraq doesn’t boil down to either fleeing foolishly or hanging on until the bloody end. We need to look at the increasing sectarian violence and American death tolls and evaluate the most effective way we can get our troops out of Iraq and safely at home. Indeed, if we “”learn from the lessons history has taught us,”” we can look to the Vietnam War and realize that our prolonged stay in Iraq will only end in more violence.

    Ellison argues that setting a timetable to pull out will only increase terrorist action once we withdraw; however, I would argue that the onslaught of sectarian bloodshed in Iraq is already providing a haven for terrorist activity.

    I agree with Ellison that America would do well to adopt a “”pragmatic”” approach to American security. However, surely pragmatism involves diplomacy first and militaristic intervention as a last result. Despite all of Condoleezza Rice’s lip service about diplomacy, it’s clear that for America to negotiate effectively, we need to actually engage in dialog with nations like Iran and Syria. With our troops in Iraq already stretched to the near-breaking point, Ellison’s idea that we should “”confront”” North Korea and Iran militarily seems not only unwise but flat-out impossible, and hardly a measure to ensure American safety.

    Bethany Evans
    political science freshman

    Refuse and Resist criticisms taken out of context

    Recent letters from members of Refuse and Resist have taken my original letter (Oct. 10’s “”Refuse and Resist doesn’t represent Democrats””) out of context. I never said thatRefuse and Resist should have been prevented from protesting. In fact, I agree with their right to protest. However, when I said that they shouldn’t be represented in government, I meant that we should not elect officials who follow their politics, which is directly tied to the Communist Party of America. I was clearly offended when they said that I was a fascist and that my ideas are in line with Bush even though I hate him as a president and think he’s one of the worst we’ve ever had, and disagree with him on 70 to 90 percent of the issues. I’ve written some of the harshest criticisms of Bush in the Arizona Daily Wildcat, so I would appreciate not being told that I support his “”regime.””

    I’ve called Bush every name in the book. My friends even wrote a song about what a terrible president he is, and every now and then we sing it together with a guitar. Apparently that is not enough for Refuse and Resist. To be acceptable in their standards you have to 1) accuse him of stuff that is unfounded and just plain stupid, 2) compare him to Hitler even though his actions pale in comparison to the atrocities of Hitler, and last but not least you have to agree with them on everything, and if you don’t, apparently you are a fascist who should not be allowed to counterprotest.

    I stand by everything I wrote in my last letter. I think Refuse and Resist is a dangerous group that one minute claims to be protecting Democracy but then tells everyone that they “”should not vote”” the next. If you guys were true liberals, you would have staged a “”peaceful”” protest, but last week’s rant was anything but. I shouldn’t even be dignifying a response to a group that did a sit-in protest of our brave men and women in the ROTC building.

    Joel Shooster
    political science junior

    Marriage should be supported

    After reading the article “”Hundreds oppose Prop. 107″” printed in Tuesday’s paper, I wanted to voice my support for Proposition 107. Contrary to some opinions, this proposition has nothing radical or subversive to it. The design of the proposed amendment is simply to prevent further confusion, by defining clearly what marriage is. Marriage, by design, has been the means by which families are started and nurtured. Marriage between a man and a woman is the only way this can happen. As a married student with children, I can see the importance of having both a mother and a father in the home who are committed to the success of their family. Each has unique characteristics that make the union of husband and wife special and different from any other relationship.

    Opponents to Prop. 107 complain that benefits may be at stake. This is an out-of-proportion argument designed to throw confusion on the matter. No existing benefits are rescinded, no employee inequalities are implied and no private-sector benefits are affected by passage of this amendment. The more important issue (which is ignored by Prop. 107 opponents) is that marriage between a man and a woman provides a stable foundation for civilization, and this foundation is currently under attack. I urge all to protect marriage by voting for Proposition 107.

    Bruce Pixton
    optical sciences graduate student

    Inappropriate to equate Iran and North Korea

    In Tuesday’s Opinions section, Daniel Greenberg (in his letter to the editor “”Question answered””) made a couple of points that seem inaccurate. In his writing, he labels Iran and North Korea as non-Democratic. North Korea I can understand, but not Iran. I’ll admit, it doesn’t sound like the type of place I’d want to live, but it’s much better then other nations in the world. For one it has universal suffrage for those 15 years of age or older. It also recognizes minority religions, with the exception of Bahia, and has reserved seats in congress. Power is also divided among different levels, with checks and balances. The merging of government with religion is the only stumbling block. Their legal system could also use work. It, like other Muslim nations, follows Shari law, which can be repressive and harsh. However, the political system, being Democratic, allows for peaceful change.

    Personally, I would think that North Korea is the most dangerous threat. In the past, North Korea has sold ballistic missiles to Yemen, Syria, Iran and other nations that the U.S. considers terrorist states. I don’t think this capital-starved nation would think twice about selling nuclear weapons to any group that came knocking. I love how Greenberg quotes the Iranian president’s words. He may say he wants to wipe Israel away in one storm, but he doesn’t control the military. The Supreme Leader is in control of the military, and he only talks about the fall of the Zionist regime and not its total destruction. And as far as relying on BBC experts, I would agree. The International Atomic Energy Agency is more the one to talk to about Iranian nuclear ambitions. They have even rebuked the U.S. for misleading and faulty information about Iran’s nuclear program. It was good to see that even they can see that the U.S. is doped up on stupid pills. And what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Prove that Iran is making or wants nuclear weapons and then label them guilty.

    Andrew Gardiner
    junior majoring in aerospace engineering and mathematics

    More to Discover
    Activate Search