The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

95° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

Mailbag: Sept. 10

Stallworth’s transgression just as reprehensible as Vick’s

I am writing in regards to William Wilson’s letter from the mailbag the other day (Mailbag, Sept. 9, 2009) concerning Michael Vick’s reinstatement in the NFL. Yes, Vick ran a dogfighting ring, and participated in executing some of the dogs. That is reprehensible and I’m not trying to defend it. However, Donté Stallworth, while driving drunk, killed a human being! Vick served a year and a half in prison, while Stallworth served a mere 24 days before being released. Meanwhile, he is set for reinstatement in the NFL after the 2009 season and the Super Bowl. Dismissing Stallworth’s transgression as an isolated event is ignorant. We can’t, in any certainty, say that we know whether or not Stallworth drove drunk regularly or not. Driving while intoxicated carries the capacity for killing an innocent person as well as yourself. Stallworth knew this, and without regard for anyone’s safety, decided to flout the law and do an incredibly stupid thing. How is this any less terrible than what Vick did? You might say it has to do with intent, but that would be a cop-out. If someone fired a gun into a crowd indiscriminately and killed someone, but cited that he didn’t intend to hit anyone, you would still find him guilty. Drunk driving should be treated similarly. I agree that what Vick did was terrible, but as Mr. Wilson pointed out, Vick served his debt to society. Why shouldn’t he be allowed to return to the NFL? After all, it is a business; Vick performs a task that the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles believes is worth the amount they pay him, and they most likely will earn a profit from it. If he errs again, he most likely will not be returning to the NFL. Give Vick a second chance before dismissing his contrition as insincere.

Andrew Seaton

International studies junior

Another side to the Israel/Palestine debate 

In last Wednesday’s issue of the Daily Wildcat appeared two different columns (“”Israel/Palestine: the ‘Robin Hood’ of international law”” by Gabriel Schivone and “”Israel/Palestine: the flaw in international law”” by Dan Sotelo, Sept. 2, 2009) commenting on the miscarriage of international law against Ezra Nawi, a Jewish pro-Arab activist.

According to Supreme Court Judge Esther Hayut, “”the security services see Nawi as a supporter of Hamas activity … “” (IsraelNationalNews.com). Both articles failed to mention that some think Nawi has had ties to supporting Hamas, a terrorist organization. To me, it seems as if Nawi isn’t as innocent as Schivone and Sotelo describe.

Although both articles look at Nawi’s case in two different ways, both writers focus on international law in the Middle East and suggest that an injustice was served against Nawi because the Israeli government tore down a home built illegally. However, the Israeli government’s actions weren’t only based on legal issues, but also for security purposes. In the same article from B’Tselem that Schivone uses to criticize the U.S. for supplying Israel with the use of material support for “”strategic weapons””, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is quoted as saying, “”the system is to smuggle through tunnels, and these tunnels are deep … Israel has to take all the necessary steps to stop the smuggling of weapons”” (B’tselem’s Policy of Destruction, February 2002).

Unfortunately, Palestinian extremists associate themselves with terrorist organizations like Hamas. Weapons smuggling is the main resource terrorists have to gain access to weapons and explosives used to kill innocent Israelis, which includes Jews, Muslims and Christians. It is because of these Palestinian terrorists that their own people have to watch their homes be taken from them, especially in this area where there is a lot of terrorist activity. Any country would take precautions like these to protect their people, and Israel is no exception.

In addition, Mr. Sotelo’s article compares “”the struggle of the Palestinian minority”” to the African American Civil Rights movement, claiming that once the majority of Israeli citizens (the Jews) incorporate with the minority (the Arabs), the Palestinians will achieve their civil rights. Both Mr. Schivone and Sotelo describe the poor and inhuman treatment of the Palestinians; yet fail to mention some key facts.

Firstly, Arabs, which includes the Palestinian population, are treated better in the democratic state of Israel than most other Arab countries. Secondly, there is no similarity between the way African Americans were treated in America and the way Arabs are treated in Israel. African Americans were used as slaves, and until the time of the Civil Rights movement, couldn’t vote in an election, among many other indignities. Arabs are not a minority with limited rights in Israel. In fact, Arabs have many political parties that are involved in the Knesset. And Arabs have the right to vote in every election Israel holds. Finally, the two authors describe the Palestinians as a people who are treated so poorly by the Israeli army. According to Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “”Since the end of the IDF operation in Gaza (Jan. 18, 2009), about 479,535 tons of aid and over 68,932,000 liters of fuel have been delivered to the Gaza Strip. Just last week (Aug. 23–29), almost twelve thousand tons of humanitarian aid were transferred to the Gaza Strip (http://www.mfa.gov.il). And Sotelo claims that the Israelis need to work with the Palestinians to improve their lifestyles? I think that Israel goes out of its way to try to help the Palestinian people as much as they can without putting the rest of the citizens of Israel in harm’s way of terrorism.

Aaron Jacobs

Media arts sophomore

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting Campus Fellow

A Cyclist’s Dream

As I ride on to the University of Arizona campus on my 1984 Nishiki every morning of my student-routined life. I absolutely appreciate the scenic bike path in between Koffler and the science library. I love the paved “”bike”” road, designated as such with a ‘Bike Route’

sign, along with two-way-traffic yellow dashes on the street.  It makes me feel special, as every cyclist does when they’re allowed their own path system that doesn’t involve cars.

I also can’t dismiss the magnificent cement-paved mall street that exists on our wonderful campus, from Park Avenue to Cherry Avenue. Oh, how I look forward to not having to avoid potholes and giant, gas-guzzling trucks.

But it is not so magical when you have college students pacing to class, on their phones, usually walking side by side, right in the middle of said bike paths. As I ride down the Highland path in the morning, I love how students seem too tired to notice they’re walking right on the bike route, with no care in the world, yelling at me because I tried to avoid their shoulder.

I do have a dream. Oh yes, a cyclist’s dream. Of a phantasmal place where pedestrians remain on the edges of bike paths, or even on their own designated ‘No Bicycles’ roads. I have a dream off a place where I can ride freely, without having to run over flip flops when someone suddenly realize that “”oncoming traffic”” doesn’t always mean cars.

Will the cyclist’s dream ever come true?

Elisa Meza

English sophomore

 

More to Discover
Activate Search