OPINION
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2005
WWW.KANSAN.COM
PAGE 7A
▼ GUEST COMMENTARY
NICK PENNEBAKER opinion@hansan.com
Safeguard U.S. border from Canada
Dear Mr. O'Reilly.
After recently viewing "The O'Reilly Factor," which you ironically dub the "No Spin Zone," I was disturbed by your desire to build a barricade between the United States and Mexico to prevent the influx of illegal aliens.
I realize that you personally want to eradicate the problem of illegal Mexican immigration, which you claim tears America apart, but why are you completely neglecting our "neighbors" to the north?
Our border with the villainous Canadians stretches over 3,000 miles — twice as long as the U.S.-Mexico border — and with its recent legalization of homosexual marriage, who knows what kind of scum can stroll across national boundaries and infiltrate America?
You've already suggested a full-on boycott of Canadian goods, and a policy move to limit immigration of Canadians to the United States, and I think you're on the right track, but if we really want to get those hockey-loving pacifists, nothing short of an enormous, steel-reinforced, concrete wall will do the trick. I feel that this is the only sure way to keep those Canadians out of our cities, our towns, our communities, our churches, our schools, our businesses, in fact, our entire wholesome society.
That's what I propose, O'Reilly, and I figure that with the help of such a prominent, well-regarded, greatly loved and admired, trusted newsman as yourself, we could find the resources to implement my idea.
Kevin McKernan/KANSAN
Bill, I know you are truly a man of statistics, so let's look at the facts. Over 90 percent of the Canadian population is along the U.S. border. According to the Toronto Free Press, 40 percent of Canadian teens believe that America is evil. Fox News broadcasts to only about half of the entire country. Freedom you ask? I beg to differ.
While you merely want to protect our southern border with a fortified wall from all of those dangerous Mexicans, you forgot about the terrorists in Canada, O'Reilly. Every day on your show you frighten us, you claim that Al Qaeda can easily smuggle an atomic bomb from Canada in to the United States with ease, while at the same time, you tell us that we're defeating terrorism.
If we really wanted to be safe, O'Reilly, instead of a wall between here and Mexico, we must fortify ourselves from both of our neighbors. You and I both know, the Canadians are plotting something.
Do you really want our government to be overthrown by people with a universal health care system?
Can you feel it now, O'Reilly? Canadians have already begun to seep into America, like maple syrup being drained from its bottle, starting with Minnesota and Wisconsin; they are slowly making their way farther and farther south.
Do you really want our national flag to be the maple leaf? I cherish the freedom which Uncle Sam not the Queen of England gave me. I agree with your plan to build a massive wall between the United States and Mexico, but let's take it one step further.
If you love America, then you will agree with me, we need another wall between United States and those Canucks. Any red-blooded American can't dismiss the fact that America is becoming too culturally diverse.
The plans for a wall surrounding the United States seem to be the only means available for protecting our life, our liberty, and our pursuit of happiness.
- Pennebaker is an Austin, Texas, freshman in pre-journalism.
MCKERNAN'S PERSPECTIVE
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Constitution protects minorities' rights, gay rights not moral issue
I took offense to David Archer's op-ed piece on Feb. 3, especially his assertion that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community should not be recognized as a minority.
The funny thing about morality is that it isn't something that is standardized for all people. And while homosexuality may be immoral in the opinion of some, in no way does that mean that the laws of an entire country must be based on that group's beliefs.
The Constitution is a document set up to protect the rights of minorities despite their popularity with the rest of the population.
Flag-burning remains a protected form of free speech despite a vast majority of people who oppose the practice.
To deny this as a civil rights battle is to deny that in more than half of all states, sexual orientation is not included in employment non-discrimination laws. To deny this as a civil rights battle is to say that some groups are not worthy of equal standing under the law in this country where "all men are created equal."
The gay rights movement isn't about bumper stickers, as the author so claims, but about ensuring that every person in America has the same opportunity to be happy, regardless of whom he or she falls in love with.
Think about this: when the Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage in 1971, 90 percent of Americans were opposed to the idea, but no rational citizen today would argue that back then the majority was right.
Daniel Gleason
Lawrence junior
French
This letter is in response to David Archer's column, "Marriage shouldn't be codified," which ran Tuesday, Feb. 3.
I have often wondered why people are opposed to gay marriage. I say, "What's the big deal? Let them marry." Archer is the first person I have encountered who has articulated his opinion on this issue. I interpreted his arguments as follows:
Gay marriage issue of civil rights columnist's position un-American
2. The Bible says so.
This scares me. These arguments have been used throughout history to justify atrocity, and this form of thinking strikes me as starkly un-American and extremely dangerous.
1. It is OK to discriminate against gays because they are a small minority.
To me, this is a civil rights issue. Archer and others like him wish to deprive a group of Americans their equal rights based upon their biology.
This is discrimination.
What harm can come from allowing gays to marry? I can think of none. It would show that America is not afraid of gays, and that we think it is acceptable to be gay. Maybe that is what Archer is afraid of, but I see these as positive steps.
Keiv Spare Parsons senior Chemical engineering
Columnist misconstrues success of Iraqi election; No democracy yet
Vince Myers is certainly ecstatic about the elections in Iraq the weekend before last, "Iraqis take ownership in democracy," Feb. 9. Now, if they only meant anything. For what exactly were the ballots being cast? Many of the candidates for office had to remain anonymous in order to remain alive through Election Day, and even if the names were known, the platforms certainly weren't. As Middle East expert Juan Cole noted last week, reports were coming out that "one motive for the good turnout in places like Najaf was the hope that a new provincial assembly could finally get the electricity turned on."
Not exactly a mandate for action.
Of course we should be thrilled at the exercise of voting that Iraqis enjoyed last weekend, but let us not read anymore into it than that — an exercise. You can say the words "freedom" and "liberty" all you want, but it will not end the insurgency or prevent civil war and more effectively.
Our current troop levels in Iraq will be maintained through the near future, Secretary of State Rice didn't know how many Iraqi security forces we've trained, and the military has admitted that most of the guerrilla fighters are Baathists, not foreign-based terrorists. Let's keep things in context please.
Ryan M. Scarrow
Humboldt senior
History and sociology
TIERRA TALKS
TIERRA SCOTT
tscott@hansan.com
Hard choices bring lasting life changes
I am sure that at one point in your life you have heard the phrase, "The decisions you make today will affect the way you live tomorrow."
Take a risk, or play it safe. Remember that the decisions we make in those situations will not only affect us, but in most cases, our loved ones as well.
Now this is not some cliché that people say simply because it sounds good. It is a new year and a new semester — situations are bound to arise. The outcome of those situations may or may not be known.
I think the hardest decision to make is one that has an unknown outcome. For example, my father and my brothers' mother both have traits of sickle cell. The odds were against them to have a child born sickle cell free. They made a tough decision and chose to have children anyway, not knowing the outcome.
together they had two lovely boys, Mike and
Even though life brings tough decisions,the outcomes can be life-changing.
very boys, Mike and Marcus. Both were born with sickle cell, but the disease affected Mike the most.
My oldest brother, Mike, suffered from the disease his entire life. He had numerous surgeries and to top it off, he had to go to dialysis every other day because $ \mathrm{h}^{2} $
kidney was beginning to fail. He could not get a transplant because his body was too weak for the operation.
Things took a turn for the worst when he turned 21 years old. His ailments began to have a domino effect. He started to spend most of his time in the hospital. It became his new home. Through it all, he never once complained. He was a true soldier.
My brother passed away a year ago at the age of 25, but I thank my father for choosing to have my brother, and I thank God for letting him stay on this earth for as long as he did. I cherish the short time I had with him.
My father's decision to have my brothers has had a tremendous impact on my life.
If Mike were never placed in my life, I would not be the person I am today. He was not only my brother; he was my friend and my teacher. Anytime I needed to vent, he was there. If no one else was around, I could depend on Mike.
He taught me how to live life to the fullest. He stressed the importance of giving and showing love to loved ones because he knew that tomorrow was not promised to anyone. He also taught me how to have a sense of humor because I took life too seriously.
Most importantly, he taught me how to stand firm in the midst of a storm. I could never be as courageous as he was. I love you Mike and you will never be forgotten.
In a situation like this, I do not believe that there is a right or wrong way to handle it.
If I were in my father's shoes, I too would have made the same decision to have children. My father took a risk twice. The outcome was not in his favor, but he still came out on top. My father had the honor of raising his own flesh and blood.
Others might have strayed away from my father's decision, but it is up to you to decide whether the outcome is worth the risk.
- Scott is a Chicago junior in journalism.
Free for All
Call 864-0500
Free for All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansan editors reserve the right to omit comments. Slanderous and obscene statements will not be printed. Phone numbers of all incoming calls are recorded.
For more comments, go to www.kansan.com.
So I'm reading the paper today, and there's a headline that says "Veteran fought in Army." Really?
Whatever happened to Big League Chew?
My roommates just took me tubing on the hill, but they wouldn't catch me, and I fell into Potter Lake. How embarrassing.
I'd like to send a warm-hearted thank you to all the buses that didn't stop today as I stood outside in the freezing cold snow. Thanks a lot.
This poem is for Kayla: Roses are red, violets are purple, I can't rhyme, I love you.
I want to see a bus driver listening to a book on tape.
This is in regard to the article about people stealing food from The Underground. These people need to stop telling on me. I love eating my free French fries, so don't tell on me again.
My car just spun off and landed in the front yard of a mortuary. Is that a sign?
▶ TALK TO US
Andrew Vaupel, editor
864-841-84 or avaupel@kansan.com
Donovan Akkinson, Mildy Huber, Amanda Kim Steinrett and Marisa Stephenson managing editors 864-A10 or editor kansasan.com
Steve Vockrot
Laura Francoviglia
opinion editors
8492-4592 or opinion@kansan.com
Ashleigh Dyck; business manager
884-4358 or advertising@kansan.com
Danielle Rose, retail sales manager
864-4358 or advertising@kansan.com
Macalim Gibson, general manager and news adviser
864-7687 or mgibson@kansan.com
Jennifer Weaver, sales
and marketing adviser
884-7685 or jweaver@kansan.com
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
David Archer, Viva Bolova,
John Byerley, Chase Edgerton,
Wheaten Elkins, Ryan Good,
Paige Higgins, John Jordan, Doug Lang,
Kevin McKernan, Mike Mostaffa,
Erica Prather, Erick Schmidt,
Devin Sikes, Gaby Souza, Sarah Stacy
and Anne Weltner
SUBMISSIONS
For any questions, call Steve Vockrort or Laura Francoviglia at 864-4924 or email opinion@kansan.com. General questions should be directed to the editor at editor@kansan.com.
SUBMISSIONS
The Kansan welcomes letters to the editors and guest columns submitted by students, faculty and alumni. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length, or reject all submissions.
LETTER GUIDELINES
Maximum Length: 200 word limit
Include: Author's name and telephone number; class, hometown (student); position (faculty member); phone number (will not be published)
GUEST COLUMN GUIDELINES
Maximum Length: 650 word limit
Include: Author's name; class, home-
room (student); position (faculty member);
phone number (will not be pub-
lished)
Also: The Kansan will not print guest columns that attack another columnist
SUBMIT TO
Kansen newroom
111 Stuffer-Flint Hall
1435 Jayhawk Blvd.
Lawrence, KS 60545
(785) 864-4810
>