The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

48° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

    Mailbag

    Ah, the smell of wax in the morning

    I just wanted to compliment the custodial staff all over campus on the wonderful job they did waxing floors over the break. Early Monday morning, I was greeted by a glistening, mirror-like shine upstairs in the Student Union Memorial Center, and ever since then, I’ve been noticing wonderfully shiny floors all over campus. Excellently done!

    William Carroll wildlife, watershed and rangeland science senior, part-time custodian

    GOP trying to elect a ‘moral’ president

    Tuesday, Joel Shooster wrote, “”I think it’s good that some in the GOP are now willing to admit the dangers the religious right is posing to this country”” and went on with his personal endorsement for presidential hopeful Barack Obama with this statement: “”Obama is also a true Christian and in my mind has far more moral character than anybody in the GOP.””

    Yet again Shooster wrote, “”for too long the ‘religious right’ has been one of the greatest threats that our democracy faces.”” I guess it’s wrong for there to be a religious right but it is right to have a religious left. Those who live here in our own country with morals are different from the terrorist that Joel Shooster tries to link us to. We are trying to elect a president of moral character.

    Obama may be that candidate on the Democrat side, but the GOP wants to hold their conservative standards to our nominee. The Democrats say the front-runners are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but I will be willing to bet that the nominee will be John Edwards.

    Talk about some major infighting coming to a political party when neither of the front-runners get the nomination. But it is our nomination that will come long before the Republican National Convention … Can we say Feb. 5?

    Sara Pat Badgley family studies and human development sophomore

    Can’t compare religious right to Muslim theocrats

    Joel Shooster claims religious conservatives in America differ in no way from the religious fanatics in the Middle East (“”Religious Right hamstrings GOP’s electoral hopes””). No doubt such a pronouncement is easily supported with concrete examples, right? Hardly.

    Instead, it’s hyperbolic in the extreme and left totally unsupported by evidence or examples. Rather, it’s the sort of ploy that’s become the heart and soul of leftist discourse: make a wildly exaggerated claim (the Bush is the same as the Nazis accusation is a favored trope) and leave it at that. Provide no evidence. Wouldn’t it be more useful, though, to offer some similarities?

    For example, if religious conservatives in America are no different from their Islamic counterparts, surely there must be a mounting pile of human heads separated from their bodies by Christian zealots here in the U.S.A. Right?

    Or maybe Shooster has access to the vast and rambling tracts those same Christian conservatives wrote which advocate for theocratic rule here? A religious manifesto which outlines a homegrown equivalent to Iran’s mullahocracy (that system of governance whereby religious leaders can overrule any act of the executive, legislature or courts) to be implemented here. No?

    And of course, it’s true that religious conservatives in America are just like the Taliban and their roving bands of religious enforcers who, armed with truncheons, moved about the cities enforcing prayer times and clubbing women for standing too close to a man or laughing in public. Right?

    Then there’s those Christian leaders in the U.S. who routinely issue edicts demanding death for authors and filmmakers whose work they dislike. Nope. Shooster can’t offer such examples because they don’t exist. The question is, then, does he really believe the words he wrote?

    If his intent was merely polemical, he fell well short of his mark. If, however, his intent was some sort of pseudo-political science, he’s reckless and negligent.

    Patrick McNamara UA alumnus

    Fanatics not exclusive to religious right

    The religious right is dangerous, but it is important that Mr. Shooster (“”Religious Right hamstrings GOP’s electoral hopes””) remember the radical left is just as dangerous. There are radicals on both sides of the aisle.

    For every Jerry Falwell and James Dobson there is a Michael Moore (see new documentary “”Manufacturing Dissent””) and George Soros. For every “”go in guns blazing”” conservative there is a “”Bin Laden isn’t a bad guy”” liberal. For every “”throw the book at him”” right wing lunatic there is a “”probation for raping a 4-year-old child”” left wing idiot. But I digress.

    You say that the GOP has failed to protect us against terrorism, but we have not been attacked since 9/11. True, the Iraq War is a disaster. However, I am tired of people politicizing the issue. This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue! No, we shouldn’t have gone, but dwelling on the past only hinders the process of fixing the future. This is an issue of what do we do now? And God forbid we get attacked again (whoops, I said God), it would hurt Republicans more.

    The most outrageous statement you make is that Middle Eastern fanaticism is not as big a threat as the religious right. Statements like that only weaken your argument and credit. It is too early to decide the nominees for 2008. If you think the Billary is going to let this Obama train keep rolling unimpeded, think again. There will be infighting amongst both parties, and once the nominees are set both parties will back their candidate like they are the best thing America could ask for.

    The American people will ask “”these are the best two we can come up with?”” Each candidate will have a past/controversy, and neither will have all the answers. Obama’s character…what did you say when you found out that he used cocaine? Did you react the same way when Bush disclosed that he too had used the drug? I doubt it. Giuliani has the leadership skills, but does he have the right stance on the issues? Obama provides optimism with every speech, but does he lack substance? Hillary says the right things when cameras are on (see Hillary’s southern accent in Selma), but does she just do what’s popular that day?

    The American people are thirsty for leadership, optimism, and desperate for the end of partisan politics. In the absence of true leadership people will follow whoever stands up. The majority of Americans care about the real issues like terrorism, health care, education, social security, taxes, etc. and their views lie somewhere in the middle – along with the truth.

    Ryan Poirier UA alumnus

    More to Discover
    Activate Search