Offensive words will always hurt

I have to say as a lesbian I am quite tired of the terms I am expected to embrace: faggot, dyke and queer, to name a few ("Free speech not a license for bigotry," March 5). What really bothers me besides the fact that no one cared to ask if I would like to be referred to by the terms, which I do not, is that while the community can toss these terms around without a second thought, we have a collective coronary if someone else uses them.

We are not 'reclaiming' anything; the terms were never ours in the first place. And if the goal of using these terms is to reduce their power to hurt, it does not seem to be working. Bottom line is, we cannot have words that are okay for some people to use and not okay, even criminal, for others to use, particularly when the determination of who can and who cannot is based on the sexual orientation or race of the speaker.

Sarah Champion

Senior, political science

Royal soldiers no different than civilian ones

Monday, March 5th's editorial, "Can the Iraq war be solved by Prince Harry of Arabia?" missed the mark. The decision Prince Harry made to go fight on the front lines of the Iraq war is courageous, but that was his personal decision.

One of the great things about this country is not only are there people who are willing to defend it, but also that it no longer forces its citizens to fight because all our soldiers volunteer for it. Even if through some improbable circumstances the draft were enforced, it would still be illegal for eligible men to skip the draft. Yes, some of the leaders of this country are exempt from the draft (and for good reason), but their children are not, and if they did skip the draft, it would not only be illegal, but also criticized.

Would having a son or daughter of a U.S. leader in the war have an impact on the actions of the entire U.S. military? The people in office are some of the most patriotic supporters of America we have. Since they want the best for their country, wouldn't it be most honorable for them to support their children in their decision to defend?

Why is there question about the sacrifices of those ordering the troops into battle? There is not one piece of evidence presented in that editorial which supports that suspicion. Why is the focus specifically aimed toward the children of our leaders to go fight and not at every other eligible citizen in this country?

Too often, the media will take a good example, such as Prince Harry serving in Iraq, and turn it into something negative in order to badmouth, Bush bash and scrutinize this wonderful country of ours. I'm not sure if the Iraq war can be "solved by Prince Harry," but using him as an example to inspire and instill patriotism in our citizens would be a lot more helpful than pointing fingers at our leaders.

Amanda Miller

Junior, communications

Smoking ban doesn't extend to Vehicles

So, let me get this straight: In the interest of our health, smoking a 3-inch cigarette for pleasure on campus is being further criminalized, but sucking on 3-foot long tailpipes anywhere you go is still mandatory? Seems like an empty gesture to me.

Christal Wood

2nd year law

Bush not on par with Hitler and Stalin

I was shocked that the author of the article on narcissism March 8th wrote, "Current and past world leaders that come to mind include George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler."

I understand that many people believe that George W. Bush is an incompetent president and responsible for the many lives lost in the Iraq war as well as elsewhere, but surely the author did not mean to imply that George W. Bush is on par with Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. These men were sick, cruel leaders. The tens of thousands killed by Hussein, and the millions killed by each Stalin and Hitler simply cannot compare to the number recent deaths under Bush's watch.

Samantha Unverferth

Sophomore, international studies

Republicans in denial about global warming

What I find most strange about the global warming debate is how skepticism on the issue has become a tenet of the Republican party ("YDUW, UWCR face off about global warming, Iraq war," March 1). How long do they propose we wait until we are completely, unequivocally, 100 percent certain that humans are responsible for altering the planet's climate? The fate of the entire planet, which is the only life-sustaining rock in this corner of the galaxy, must at some point trump the economic sacrifices we might have to absorb while cutting carbon emissions.

I thought Republicans were all about taking preemptive action against hypothetical threats. After all, according to the comments made by the UW College Republicans during February 28th's debate, the real reason for invading Iraq was to preemptively strike at the capability for producing WMDs, not because we claimed Hussein was already in possession of them. Tortured logic and political backtracking aside, why not apply a similar policy of preemption to global warming?

I think the answer lies in Republicans' secret belief that global warming is the one thing that can prevent the next ice age, which would mean CO2 production is a preemptive measure to rescue the human race. Why they refuse to admit this is inexplicable, and they appear to be the party of ignoring perhaps the biggest global crisis of the 21st century.

Pascal Clark

Graduate student, electrical engineering