Vista assault reporting lacking
(In response Nicholas Mendoza’s Wednesday article, “Student claims he was assaulted by group of men outside Vista del Sol.”)
As an employee of the Domino’s located within the Vista del Sol apartment complex, I am thoroughly offended by the lack of research that went into this article by its author.
On Feb. 6, I was at work during the time that this incident occurred and was working up front at our carry-out counter the entire time. Our storefront is made up of two large windows separated by glass double doors. From the counter, I have great visibility even on a busy night.
Mr. Mendoza’s article implies that this event occurred in plain view of our store, which is entirely false. Had that been the case, I, or one of our other employees constantly moving through the store, would have noticed. Especially if there was a crowd gathered.
Were we to have noticed, we would not have stood and watched, as was also implied, but would have halted business to run out and assist the student being assaulted, as well as calling the police. These implications aside, I and the entire crew of Domino’s in Vista del Sol offer our sincere wishes for a speedy recovery to Mr. Golden, and hope that his attackers are brought to justice.
A Necessary sacrifice
(In response to Brendan O’Kelly’s Wednesday letter, “Funding fight.”)
Here’s a novel idea. How about we don’t complain to the Arizona State Legislature about having to pay a measly $1,025 in surcharges? In a time where Arizona is facing a massive budget shortfall of $1.6 billion, we’re complaining about a relatively small rise in the money we pay that would allow us to meet a fundamental need for our school?
It sucks. I get it. I like my money, too. But our state is in deep debt. We don’t have the money to pay for everything, and we all have to make sacrifices to come out on top of that debt.
Arizona is still giving money to the University (as it should) but less than before; programs will be cut, enrollment will be capped, and we’ll have to pay more money for school.
President Crow is keeping this University afloat to the best of his ability, and if he says he needs more money to keep it running, he needs the money.
I’ve not always been Crow’s biggest fan, but here, now, I believe he’s doing his very best to keep ASU alive in a time of necessary hardship.
As for the state Legislature, I think they’re doing the same: trying to keep the state afloat, free from an even deeper debt, and making some necessary, though painful, sacrifices to do it.
NASCAR requires endurance
(In response to Zach Fowle’s Monday column, “Commercial on wheels, not sport.”)
After reading Monday’s point/counterpoint columns, I take exception to Mr. Fowle’s remarks on why he feels NASCAR is not in fact a sport.
Sport as defined by Government of British Columbia’s Ministry of Economic Development Web page states, “Sport is a physical activity involving large muscle groups, requiring strategic methods, physical training and mental preparation and whose outcome is determined, within a rules framework, by skill, not chance. Sport occurs in an organized, structured and competitive environment where a winner is declared.”
NASCAR fits this definition of sport as well as others I looked up because it does require the use of physical and mental training due to the 36 race schedule at 21 different tracks, races lasting at least three hours and depending on the speedway battle high G-forces like at Bristol Motor Speedway where the drivers average 80 mph on a half mile track while facing about 27 degrees in banking throughout the turns. It is a little more difficult than just taking a turn at 80 on a flat street.
Also the use of strategy is something the casual viewer misses. There is much more to this sport than just riding around in circles. A driver follows specific rules, their cars must be inspected and meet the sanctioning body’s guidelines while competing with 42 other drivers.
They are constantly working inside the cars where as a football player goes in bursts of 5 to 20 seconds each play.
(In response to the Feb. 18 editorial, “Smoking: right or right?”)
In response to the opinions of the editorial staff, I do not raise issue. Disagreement, yes, but not issue. However, the excuses/arguments used for the opinions in this editorial shocked me.
You can’t sincerely believe there is an equality in French fries and cigarettes can you? Or that smoking actually bears fruit in the argument of constitutional rights?
According to you, the idea of suspending the right to drink or bear arms on campus is passable, but not when it comes to smoking.
The Second Amendment directly provides for the right to bear arms, and the 21st repealed an attempt to stifle alcohol consumption, thus making it a constitutional right to consume alcohol. Nowhere in the constitution do I see a single statute protecting nor assuring the right to smoke tobacco.
Bars and restaurants have legally banned smoking, and places like airports, airplanes, hotels, shopping centers and smoke shops exercise their right to ban or stipulate terms of tobacco use. Why not the University? Why not four heavily populated youth-filled metropolitan areas?