The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

91° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

    Mail Bag

    Important to remember Iraqi losses, too

    After looking at the display in Alumni Plaza, I realized that we could probably fill most of the UA Mall with Iraqi flags honoring the innocent civilians who have died as a result of the war. We may never know how many have died, but estimates are upwards of 150,000 people.

    What makes an American life more precious than that of an Iraqi? As we desperately want to see the war come to an end, let us not forget to remember those innocents who have lost their lives, their friends and family, and even their country.

    Corrie Panganiban interdisciplinary studies senior

    Wildcat bias in Horowitz article

    Having just covered David Horowitz’s criticism of certain courses and persons at the UA on my blog, I was initially glad to see that the Arizona Daily Wildcat had picked up on the story (“”Faculty responds to Horowitz””). Upon close analysis of the article, however, one can notice a small but clear sign of bias against Horowitz that sets a biased tone for the entire article.

    Rather than introducing Horowitz to its readers as perhaps a “”conservative activist”” or “”founder of two conservative academic-watchdog organizations,”” the Wildcat feels the best way to introduce Horowitz into the story is to identify him as a “”Fox News analyst.”” I assume the author meant more specifically “”Fox News contributor,”” indicating that he is a paid employee and not just a frequent guest.

    Surely, no coherently thinking individual of any political persuasion is truly surprised that the Wildcat has some sort of beef against Fox News. Nonetheless, the Wildcat’s choice of identifier is truly bizarre. Not even Jeff Nelson, one of the instructors targeted in Horowitz’s article, mentions either on his blog or in his Jan. 31 letter to Associated Students of the University of Arizona and Arizona Students’ Association officials that Horowitz happens to be a Fox News contributor.

    Furthermore, my own research is only able to confirm that Horowitz was a Fox News contributor up until Sept. 3, 2002, when he posted a column onto his website, www.FrontPageMag.com, indicating himself as such. The FrontPageMag.com column itself was a reprint from his column on Jewish World Review circa the preceding June 18.

    I welcome any evidence that shows Horowitz is a current Fox News contributor, but I am afraid such evidence may not exist. Observers from all perspectives ought to agree that Horowitz’s title “”Fox News analyst”” as stated in the article is at best an overemphasized and impertinent minor detail inserted for the purpose of tonal slant. I hope for the Wildcat’s sake that it isn’t entirely false.

    Garrett P. O’Hara political science senior

    Democrats’ opposition self-centered, short-sighted

    In his letter to the editor, former Young Democrats President David Martinez III gave himself an ill-deserved pat on the back for “”sending a strong message”” and having a “”newfound respect”” for our military (“”Memorial a reminder of failed Iraq policy””). If Martinez truly respects our military, why doesn’t he support them rather than undermine them?

    Like the peaceniks of the Vietnam era, Martinez desires to give the political victory to the enemy even as our soldiers are militarily superior. If Martinez were sincere in respecting the work and sacrifices of our service members, he would look beyond the one-sided media reports of military deaths to see the unreported positive actions of our soldiers that occur on a daily basis.

    Not only are the Young Democrats politically self-centered in their message, but they are also short-sighted. Yes, around 2,500 American soldiers, including 59 Arizonans, have been killed in action, and each one of those soldiers will be missed. Yet this is all Martinez sees, entirely overlooking the possible effects of his desired policies.

    Indeed, what would a defeat in Iraq mean? Might Iraq fall to the overwhelming force of brutal and immoral terrorists? Would terrorists worldwide become encouraged? Will coalition allies be more reluctant to join with us in future events?

    Would we lose even more political power and prove that bin Laden and his ilk were correct when they claimed America couldn’t stomach a war? What sort of successes does Martinez believe diplomacy will bring if America’s enemies don’t believe America’s promises and threats?

    Democrats can try as best as they can to shift all the blame of the war and its failures to our president, but the fact remains that in the eyes of the world, and in reality, America as a whole is responsible for its actions.

    It’s time for Martinez’s party to become responsible and honest: Democrats should either support the war and the military or they should declare that we have failed and admit that America no longer has the will to back up its potential when push comes to shove.

    Dan Greenberg political science freshman

    Rec Center expansion shows ‘perverted’ priorities

    So we will be expanding the Student Recreation Center at a cost of $22.5 million (“”Rec expansion utility tunnel incites feud””). This is because there is a traffic jam at the weight room from 6 p.m.-7 p.m. and a new rock-climbing wall is desired.

    At the same time we are cutting $10 million from academic budgets. Yes, I know these funds come from different sources, but does this not suggest a slightly perverted sense of priorities?

    Daniel Asia music professor

    Mall preachers distort Jesus’ message

    I hate it when I see angry men yelling about God and his wrath. They yell at my peers about my God and they don’t seem to know much about him. I hate when they say that God is mad at us for this or for that. Why not stand up there and tell people about why Jesus died on the cross? Why not use the same method he did when trying to reach people?

    Sure, he got mad at the religious leaders of his time who were misleading people. But to the people – his message was one of grace and love. That is the Jesus I serve, one who loves me despite my mistakes. He didn’t send some man on a mission to yell at me and scare me into submission.

    The message of Jesus is love – don’t let those angry screamers convince you otherwise. Don’t let your impression of God be made by someone who uses his book to create a soapbox. Don’t allow people who have misinterpreted the Bible make you think it means something it does not. If you have real questions about Jesus, for your sanity and mine, don’t ask them.

    Aisling Campbell English and creative writing senior

    Taxing CEOs not unethical

    I thought Stan Molever had a good point in his column (“”Playing Robin Hood””). If the government taxes wealthy people no millionaire should be exempt. He’s right – we should tax all millionaires.

    The proposed tax system would begin to bridge the gap between the wealthiest corporate executives and their employees. It’s not as if an executive whose annual income consists of millions of dollars is suddenly going to make the average American’s annual salary of $25,000 a year. In fact, from reading this particular article, I have no idea how much these executives will be taxed.

    I could be wrong; maybe they will start to make $25,000 a year. Something tells me, however, that that is completely off base.

    Furthermore, a progressive tax system benefits the majority of the people in this country. Extra tax revenue could eventually fund health care, education and other “”charitable”” causes, as Stan put it.

    Next time you ask me to consider the taxing of executives unethical, please provide me with some concrete examples. How can I possibly agree with your argument and be outraged by the bill when you haven’t told me how much these top executives are going to be taxed or how much they make? For now, I think taxing these executives is an excellent idea.

    Ariel Anderson psychology and music sophomore

    Horowitz doesn’t have solution for higher ed

    I read the Wildcat’s review of David Horowitz’s article about our higher-education system (“”Faculty responds to Horowitz””) and decided I needed more information. It is irrational and erroneous to make any judgment about a primary source based upon a secondary review of the initial source.

    Thus, I looked up the article “”Abusive Academics”” and read that, seeing as how there is no better way to be fully informed about an article than to read the article itself. While reading the article, I have come to the realization that I do not have a clear idea what educational ideology he or his constituents are advocating.

    Horowitz has offered many complaints about what is being offered, but he has not provided an alternate curriculum. I am not asking for a broad, general statement, but rather a finely articulated, detailed protocol of what these people would proclaim to be the “”perfect education.”” Perhaps then we can address the issues in our higher education curriculum, as they need to be addressed.

    There is one issue brought up by this article that may indeed be pragmatic. The free exchange of ideas in the U.S. stops short of complete freedom to say whatever one wishes. Specifically, libel and slander are prohibited. If this article written by David Horowitz violates this principle, then both the author and his publisher are accountable for these actions.

    I do not have the educational background to determined whether this is indeed the case, so I leave the review of this matter to those people who are more fully qualified. I realize this sort of legal affair may be viewed as crybaby bickering in our sue-happy nation by liberal and conservative radicals alike, but the fact remains that we are all accountable to the same set of laws.

    Ben Kaur UA alumnus

    More to Discover
    Activate Search