|
Letters to the Editor
NASCAR is a great sport
In a recent column Adam Czech pondered whether certain competitions qualify as a sport. Regarding NASCAR, he wonders who would validate this as a sport. The late writer/adventurer Ernest Hemingway stated in an interview with Chris Economaki, "There are but three sports: bullfighting, mountain climbing, and automobile racing. And all the rest are games." Perhaps these criteria will help Mr. Czech in future evaluations.
Brian Boss
Senior, Accounting
In response to Adam Czech's column entitled "Some sports just not worth it," I would like to tell him how wrong his analysis on NASCAR really is. The word "sport" as defined in the dictionary is a physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Maybe I'm missing the boat here, but NASCAR combines all of three of these. Extremely skilled and experienced drivers, not to mention pit crew members, governed by NASCAR officials and guidelines, giving their all every week in seek of victory. NASCAR has 75 million fans in the US, making it the largest spectator sport. 42 percent of them earn $50,000 a year or more. It is not just rednecks who enjoy the thrill and sounds of race day. I would love to see the average person try to drive a stock car at speeds of 220 plus miles an hour in cramped surroundings. I ask this question in response. If NASCAR is not a sport, what is?
Eric Thompson
Senior, Economics
All women should be feminists
If there is one thing that drives me crazy it is non-feminist women. To me, the term is an oxymoron. Before you begin to argue, think about this - when women first entered co-ed colleges, they could not speak in class and had to do male students' laundry and much of the cooking. Why has this changed? Feminism.
Feminism has greatly improved the life of every single woman on this campus simply because none of them have to do any laundry but their own and they can freely speak up in class. Furthermore, they can vote, enter any job they choose, join the military, engage in extramarital sex, play sports and enjoy a myriad of other activities at the same rate as men.
Women today that are not feminist are, in reality, uneducated and unappreciative of the work done in the past 150 years to emancipate them. They are also ignorant of the work that still needs to be done for many women. Furthermore, legislation like Title IX and the Civil Rights Act does not, contrary to popular belief, let women succeed without hard work. Unless endowed with a large trust fund, no person in America could succeed without hard work. They are simply pieces of legislation aimed at assuring that discrimination does not occur, just as the Bill of Rights assures us that the government will not infringe upon our human rights. Just because we understand that these rights are fundamental does not mean that we no longer need the documents that ensure them.
I urge non-feminist women to consider where they would be without the feminist achievements of the last century and a half. I urge them to understand and respect their history and to strip away the stereotypes surrounding feminism. Most of all however, I urge non-feminist women and men alike to realize that feminism is not intended to threaten them.
Ursula Arnold
Senior, History and Ethnic Studies
No good reasons for war
Michael Franti once said, "You can bomb the world to pieces, but you cannot bomb the world to peace."
This is obvious to many, but not to the Bush Administration. While the majority of the world is against the war in Iraq, a handful of men running this country will soon decide to fight based on what is best for themselves.
In the U.S., an ever-increasing populace is patriotically opposing war. Our allies in the European Union are urging Bush to use restraint. Hundreds of thousands of European citizens have demonstrated against war. The 22 member Arab League, which consists of Iraq's neighbors, disapproves of war. They know that Iraq is not a threat to them.
Decimating Iraq will not make the U.S. safe, especially in this climate where the majority of people around the globe are not with us, they are against us.
War on Iraq would also violate international law, which states that war can only be a legitimate option in cases of self-defense or genocide, neither of which are the case in this situation.
The excuse that Iraq has violated U.N. resolutions cannot be a clear justification for war either. While Saddam has violated 12 resolutions, U.S. allies Isreal and Turkey have violated many more and still receive substantial U.S. military aid. That's called hypocrisy.
The regime change excuse does not work either. If the Bush Administration uses this excuse it will set a precedent for other countries to do the same whenever they see fit.
Finally, war would not create peace. It would only create more anger and violence toward the U.S. throughout the world.
Kaylo Brooks
Senior, Social Work
|
|
|
|
Privacy Policy Network Advertising Article Syndication
|
|
