Free speech Friday

Husky logo should indimidate

Dear UW Alumni: Thank you for buying football tickets and thank you for staying Huskies for life. Sorry if our logo is a little less cute than yours was. Please don't stop giving us your money ("Pick your Dawg," Dec. 8, 2005).

Liz Heinrich, thank you for caring, but our logo is not on steroids. Yes, it is a little coyote-like, and no, it does not have its tongue hanging out. It isn't very fluffy either, I'm not sure if it would play fetch and apparently the proud tradition of the Northwest is broken down by its sleekness.

Have you seen the intimidating daffy duck logo of Oregon? They're keeping Northwest traditions of cuteness alive and kicking.

Yes, I want our mascot to have its eyes open and tongue out, and have you seen the Husky coming out of the tunnel? Really cute. I want a tough logo. I don't want to be Oregon.

Why not take it a step further? We don't care what the students think anyway. I say we take the only thing cuter than a Husky puppy, and put it on the football helmets. UW's new logo is officially the sun dodging kid with the giant bow tie circa 1920. It will strike fear into Cougars, Ducks and Beavers alike. Go Huskies.

-- Brent Lamphier

Junior, business

Tookie doesn't deserve clemency

Tookie needs to be executed ("A plea for Tookie Williams," Dec. 8, 2005). Tookie has been writing kids books to help children out. If Tookie really wants to help kids, he could show them a few important lessons.

Lesson number one to the kids is: "You join a gang, you kill people, you get killed." Kids will understand that killing people is a bad idea. Tookie needs to accept responsibility for his actions. He did murder convenience store clerks with a sawed off shotgun, then laughed at them while they died.

Lesson number two to the kids is "take responsibility for your actions."

The third and best reason for executing Tookie Williams is that he won't be around to kill anyone anymore. It will be one less bad person on Earth.

Lesson number three to the kids is "the people of the United States do not tolerate murderers, gang leaders and other awful people."

It is about time that we got tough on criminals.

-- Jason Woodruff

Graduate student, environmental and occupational health Sciences

Asian actors often pigeonholed

Thank you Luke S. Lee for your article ("It's a geisha story, sort of," Dec. 7, 2005). Asian and Pacific Islander American (APIA) actors have been playing characters outside of their ethnic group throughout American film history. The roles for most APIAs remain entirely stereotypical, and they are seemingly forced to take these subjugated roles as a sole means to put their name on the map in the film industry, notably seen in the acting careers of Nancy Kwan and Pat Morita.

Some people view Khmer American actors characterized as Vietnamese American gang bangers offending and stereotypical. However, one must never forget about the white people who continue to perpetuate "yellowface" roles (and we'll never forget Mickey Rooney's foolish "yellowface" portrayal of a Japanese man in Breakfast at Tiffany's). Imagine if we were to present a film to dominant society in which we painted an Asian and portrayed her/him as a white person.

There have been many APIA-led protests in the past that united communities upon similar issues centered on "yellowface" and/or discriminatory role-playing, as seen during the release of Broadway's Miss Saigon. APIAs know that they have a voice and they will undoubtedly make use of it upon the release of the film, Memoirs of a Geisha. Stereotypes that perpetuate APIAs as one uniform group strongly suggest that this society is still dangerously ignorant when it comes to receptiveness upon distinct cultural aspects of ethnic groups.

-- Baron B. You

Senior, American ethnic studies and physiology

"Play it loud" spouts empty rhetoric

David Silver's article, ("Play it loud, play it real loud," Dec. 7, 2005) is purely rhetoric.

Whether or not you agree with Silver's opinions on our government and policy, it is disappointing that he is content in calling people that do scared, defeated, old, tired or bored, but fails to substantiate these claims with facts. At least the columns put out by Daily staff involve some semblance of research and put forth a logical argument. Whether or not you like Bob Dylan (I do) or George Bush (I'm not a big fan), it is embarrassing that a member of the UW faculty is willing to associate himself with this cute but hollow propaganda piece.

-- Eric Nusbaum

Sophomore, political science

Where is Christmas trees conspiracy?

Andrew Brown's recent editorial on Christmas trees seems a thoughtful but under-motivated project.

A small quibble: Brown claims Christmas trees originally were Winter Solstice symbols, then just sentences later deems these trees unique to Christmas. How can he consistently make both claims?

But my real worry is that this "mob of crackpots that has risen up recently," which Brown accuses of conspiring to rename Christmas trees, goes entirely unidentified. Brown names not one person or group advocating this position, much less a vehement campaign. Is there really a groundswell of activism to rename Christmas trees, or are we talking about isolated cases? Is Brown attacking a straw man opponent here?

It would be nice if he could give us some evidence that any substantial activist movement is actually agitating for this position.

-- Ben Almassi

Grad Student, philosophy

Andrew Brown's argument stating that the Christmas tree has little religious significance and is not offensive is leaving out a few bits of information.

He is right that the Christmas tree was adopted from the celebration of Winter Solstice, but it's not just that. Christianity took the time of year as well, in order to more easily convert non-Christians to Christianity. The Christmas tree in fact represents a very strong religious tradition: conversion.

I think the reason behind changing the name of the tree is that many people are not Christian, though our society assumes Christianity. If you're going to put a tree in a publicly funded space, you should recognize that it might not mean the same thing to everyone, and may in fact make some people feel isolated and discriminated against in their place of work or school -- which is the reason for separation of church and state.

I think using the term 'Holiday Tree' in this instance is a good idea, but better yet, just don't put up a tree at all -- it's not as if Christmas will suffer.

-- Marisa Hackett

Senior, psychology

Alito's nomination a no-brainer

It seems reasonable that President Bush should want to nominate someone who shares his political perspective. Generally, when presidents nominate justices, they look for judges with a similar political perspective. Is that wrong? No.

What is wrong is to classify the prohibition of abortion as tragic. Legally prohibiting abortion is not tragic. Tragedy involves something deeply saddening; something like the death of a child -- something like an abortion.

-- Brock Sande

Sophomore, pre-major

Wikipedia editorial unoriginal

While it is questionable as to whether anyone would actually cite Wikipedia as a source for an academic paper, the real problem I see with the editorial in Tuesday's paper ("Wary of Wikipedai," Dec. 6, 2005) was the glaring error in the second to last paragraph:

"The Web site doesn't even know who entered the erroneous information; it could have been anybody."

Actually, they do know. Every change made to Wikipedia is documented, and the IP addresses are recorded. The IP address for the perpetrator of this "slander" of Mr. Seigenthaler's good name? It was recorded, and in fact came from BellSouth, which is where the investigation currently is.

Wikipedia has since changed the policy regarding adding new entries; only registered users can now do so.

Lastly, is The Daily ever going to write about real news? Or better yet, at least not be outdated by the time the news comes to print? This Wikipedia nonsense was a story last week (in fact, Nov. 29 is when Mr. Seigenthaler wrote about the "malicious 'biography'") and an editorial lambasting them for their inaccuracies a week later is in very poor taste.

Quit jumping on the bandwagon and try to have something original to say once in a while. Who knows, people might start caring.

-- Paul Belmore

Senior, mathematics

Mental illness misrepresented

Upon reading Ernest Yang's opinion piece about Prozac, I became incensed not only at the factual inaccuracies he presented, but also at the disregard shown for the reality of mental illness and treatment ("Prozac nation no longer," Dec. 5, 2005).

"Low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin" do not cause depression, but rather an imbalance of chemicals in the brain does, only one of which is serotonin. This imbalance may lead to problems with communication between brain cells. SSRIs such as Prozac do not "keep serotonin in your system longer," but rather allow for the serotonin to move from one cell to the next normally.

Drugs are not the only option for treatment for depression. In some cases, a depressed person can recover with cognitive-behavioral therapy alone. However, if drugs are necessary, Prozac is not the only option. Besides SSRIs (of which there are many besides Prozac), there are TCAs, SNRIs and MAOIs, all of which serve individual patients differently. These medications can be life-changing and, at times, life-saving. Fifteen percent of people with chronic depression die from it.

The point of antidepressant medication is not to "[produce] euphoria," as Yang is wont to argue. A person with depression, like anyone else, experiences emotional highs and lows throughout the day, but the lows for a person with depression are markedly lower. Antidepressants raise the floor on those lows. One can take Prozac and still feel sad, but hopefully that sadness will no longer be crippling. The point of psychiatric medication is to help depressed people recover emotional levels that more closely resemble those of non-depressed people.

Unlike Yang, I hope that opiates never become adequate pharmaceutical options for depressed individuals. The addiction caused by these drugs has the potential to destroy people's lives in ways even depression does not. Yang seems to think the addiction issue would be solved by giving unlimited refills to people living with mental illnesses because, "depression-causing mental disorders are a lifelong battle for the people who suffer from them."

If you don't know what you're talking about, do some research. Or keep your mouth shut. These are people's lives you're talking about.

-- Alyssa L. Hellrung

Graduate student, women studies

Despite writing a moderately cohesive editorial on the use of opiates as anti-depressants, Ernest Yang fails to recognize the fundamental concepts of science and logic that disprove his argument.

It is ironic that the author references the irresponsible use of commercialized heroin in the early 20th century, yet he cannot deduce that an opiate wonder drug for depression would be quickly degraded in a similar way. Especially with "unlimited prescription renewals," addiction would be severe, and illegal use of the drug would be inevitable.

However, Yang states that "dependence will cease to be a problem" if opiate-addicted people have an endless pharmaceutical supply -- a perfect logical fallacy. I assume the average readers of The Daily understand a concept called "tolerance," even if our author does not. Imagine the sheer amount of drugs taken by these people if opiates "accompany them throughout their life," as he suggests. Inherently, there would be an enormous risk of overdose for depressed patients.

Furthermore, we must consider addicts without the funds to sustain their drug habit. Here we introduce another term for Yang -- "withdrawal." Withdrawal symptoms in opiate-dependent persons include: vomiting, diarrhea, anxiety, insomnia, and most importantly, depression.

Overall, Yang, you've proved that more research should definitely be done. However, I believe you, and not the drug companies, should do this research.

-- Will Giardino

Junior, psychology

Remembering World AIDS Day

Thank you for the editorial published on Dec. 1 about World AIDS day. This editorial did a fantastic job of making the AIDS crisis relevant to students at the UW.

During this time we must also remember how this crisis affects others around the world, and the statistics are terrifying. Today 8,200 people will die from AIDS, and 1,500 of them will be children. Many of these infected with AIDS will die from Tuberculosis. Both AIDs and Tuberculosis are diseases that mainly kill the poor. For example, it only costs $16 to cure tuberculosis and $1 a day for AIDS retrovirals. One of the best ways to remedy this situation is to fund the Global Fund to Fight AIDs, TB and Malaria.

However, the United States is not providing one-third the support for the global fund to fight AIDs, TB, and Malaria that it has pledged to give. The global fund wisely spends the money it receives, with 80 percent of its projects meeting or exceeding treatment goals.

This year the Global Fund would like to fund more projects, but they are $300 million short. It is still amazing to me that the United States will spend $1 billion dollars a day on its defense budget but will not spend a few hundred million dollars to save thousands of lives a day. It seems our priorities are confused.

-- Scott Johnson

Graduate student, electrical engineering