Readers' Forum Aug. 1, 2006

NASCAR is popular

When you watch a race for the first time there is no way you are going to be able to appreciate the competition that NASCAR provides. The exact same is expected of any event someone spectates for the first time. Their knowledge of the rules, players and strategies are incomplete and they are not able to make a fully informed decision about the value or worth an event holds.

It takes those with strong minds to understand the thrill and excitement of each race to be able to fully

comprehend the passion that so many across the country feel every week.

NASCAR is the #1 spectator sport ? holding 17 of the top 20 attended sporting events in the U.S., the #2

rated regular season sport on network TV, just behind NFL Football, with broadcasts in 150 countries. As of July 2005, there are an estimated 75 million fans of this glorious sport. That number continues to increase rapidly, making NASCAR the fastest growing sport in America. These loyal spectators are not weak minded, they simply realize the unique and stimulating nature this sport offers.

Boring NASCAR

Though I'm not a NASCAR fan, I am a BYU student and was therefore offended by Ms. Frost's article 'NASCAR: Not for the strong of mind.' I believe it's common knowledge that NASCAR is not only for the

dim-witted, but is among the most boring things on television (I'm of course not talking about the crashes). So please, if you want to complain about your job, save it for your boyfriend. Just remember that he, as a man, will be dreaming about 'driving at unsafe speeds,' etc., while you, as a woman, will not be funny.

In conclusion, I'm not defending NASCAR; I'm just saying I don't know anybody that watches it anyway. If you want to complain about boring TV, try 'So You Think You Can Dance.'

Fallacious response to 'A Free Ride'

While the letter 'A Free Ride' had more than its share of problems, the responses to it in Thursday's paper have caused me to ask myself once again whether people are intentionally muddying the issue, or whether they simply cannot see it clearly. Escobosa's letter was chock-full of fallacies and non-sequitors.

She mentions that whites commit crimes, which is irrelevant. She says that we would appreciate English service in a hotel in China, ignoring the difference between tourists and illegal aliens. She refers to English as a 'minority language,' which I have yet to figure out.

She then claims to discuss the 'political and economic benefits,' which she has derived from some political scientist (an economist would be a good source for economic analysis). In arguing that illegals boost Social Security funds, she is ignoring something. Many illegals work under the table, meaning that they do not pay SS taxes. Those who do must provide a false SS number, meaning that they are committing ID and/or SS fraud.

Other letters mention that some immigrants are here legally and that most of the illegals work hard. None of that is relevant to the issue.

Although the original letter incorrectly draws the conclusion that 'it is our fault that they are here,' it was correct in that much of what happens in the U.S. does contribute to the decision to enter the nation illegally.

Realistic relations

If the Bush administration is so keen on pressuring Syria to assuage the crisis in the Middle East, why is it maintaining limited diplomatic relations with the current regime in that country? If I were an administration endeavoring to mitigate a regional crisis, I would definitely desire the best in diplomatic connections with those concerned. Then again, the Bush administration is probably sticking to its ineffective credo of opposing 'oppressive, terrorist regimes.' This policy is simply ludicrous. Yes, the regime in Syria is harsh, totalitarian, and brutal, but sometimes the niceties of the human conscience must be dispensed with for the necessities of reality. We can't limit our relations with countries just because they possess cruel regimes- the result would

be foreign policy suicide. Too often the current administration has let its idealized view of humanity eclipse the pressing concerns of reality. Let's hope it stops smelling its fictional roses and wakes up to

the reality of a Palestine bathed in blood.

In addition to this, why has Israel continued to destroy the Lebanese infrastructure? Hezbollah is not endorsed by the Lebanese government, so why should that government be made to pay for the crimes of a few of

its deviant citizens? I believe that Prime Minister Olmert of Israel has shown himself to be less of a progressive than his party name, Kadima(Forward), suggests. He seems to be engaging in a full-fledged war because of the insignificant kidnapping of a few soldiers. Maybe he's

trying to increase his own popularity by appearing to be 'tough on terror.' If he is, I would advise him to reconsider his strategy. Just one glance at Bush's problems in Iraq would illustrate the futility of

such a policy.

Not funny

I am concerned with a recurring problem in the best part of our beloved Daily Universe. While we all appreciate reading the news and other articles, any straw poll will show that most readers will instinctively turn to the penultimate page to read the funnies. What a disappointment it is to turn to the happiest part of the paper only to find that one of yesterday's strips has reappeared. This has happened repeatedly since I have been a student here. This week it was Frank & Ernest.

Sometimes it is Foxtrot. Worst of all, even Dilbert has been desecrated by this unfunny repetition. Is anyone editing this page and comparing it to the previous day's paper?

While I may not understand everything that happens in the news office, I hope someone is at least reading the funnies over there. Or maybe that gets skipped along with all the proofreading.

Immigration myths

To the author of 'Some Context', to answer your question, 'aren't we all immigrants in some way or another?', no, we are not. Thomas Eddlem, wrote an excellent article found on thenewamerican.com that dispels the 'We are a nation of immigrants' myth and other myths about illegal immigration. He points out that most liberals use this clever yet false statement to support illegal immigration. Depending on the source, you will find that 85 to 90 percent of those living in the United States were indeed born here, therefore they are not immigrants. Granted, most of our ancestors were immigrants, but the same can be said about most countries in the world. You said that any political scientist will admit that illegal immigrants boost our economy. Perhaps an economist would have a better idea about that rather than a political scientist. Besides, most statistics that support this argument are distorted because they include the money that legal immigrants contribute to our society as well. Most illegal immigrants work ?under the table? and thus avoid paying taxes or Social Security. Also, lets not underestimate the huge drains that illegal immigrants have on our economy that are difficult to measure such as their free-riding of public education, the decrease in the quality of our schools, and emergency medical care to name a few. I?m sorry, no matter how many flattering or clever one-liners you can come up with, illegal immigration is still wrong?it is hurting our country and something needs to be done about it.

Insanity myths

Thursday?s editorial about Andrea Yates being found not guilty by reason of insanity (?Yates Shouldn?t Just Go Free?) partook of common misconceptions about the insanity defense. Several studies have shown that the average defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity spends more time in a psychiatric facility than they would have spent in jail if found guilty. Conditions at the psychiatric institutions are often more restrictive than in prisons. This verdict is no ?get out of jail free card.? There are significant public policy and legal issues surrounding the insanity defense, but a good understanding of its current role in the justice system is the first step to making thoughtful comments on the issue.