UN I V E R S I T Y D A I L Y K A N S A N
Monday, May 2, 1994
5
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Pro-life and anti-choice mean the same thing
I am writing in response to Kierston Stadler's letter, which appeared in the April 20 Kansan. She was offended that the author of a previous article had used the term-choice instead of pro-life. In her own letter, Stadler writes "To me, 'anti-choice' insinuates that these people, myself included, are not for anything but against everything and are against a person's right to choose." In the last part of that phrase, Stadler directly contradicts herself. She and pro-lifers are "against a person's right to choose."
— a person's right to choose abortion. The pro-choice movement has chosen the term "anti-choice" because it better describes the pro-life movement.
However, I do have some questions for Stader. Since pro-lifers want to eliminate abortion and hence bring more children into the world, possibly into a life of poverty, does any pro-life group give its support, financial or otherwise, to any child health-care or day-care programs? I personally do not know of any pro-life groups that do so How about birth control? Do any of the pro-life movements support either its use or distribution (other than all non-artificial methods)? I don't know of any pro-life groups that do.
It seems to me that the pro-lifers are more anti-choice than they think they are. They are against a person's right to choose birth control, abortion or post-natal assistance other than welfare. Pro-life groups will continue to be anti-choice until they choose to support more positive and realistic solutions to an unwanted pregnancy.
Valorie Workman Concordia senior
Group doesn't represent views of all Taiwanese
I am indignant about Denise Neil's April 27 article, "Taiwanese Students want Distinction," which included comments by Linda Chen and John Wu.
Chen claims, "Western influences have not affected the Chinese culture as much as they have the Taiwanese cultures ... Taiwan would really like to be an independent country." Her words imply that Taiwanese are superior to mainland
Chinese in their cultural and economic status, thus mainland Chinese hope to seize the "treasurable" island. Chen's statement is very offensive to mainland Chinese because mainland China has never had the intention to unite with Taiwan for this reason. Chen is gauging the hearts of gentlemen with her own mean measure.
Wu mentions the difficulties that Taiwanese students have coming to an American university. But if Taiwan has deep influences from Western cultures, why do they find it difficult to be intimate with American culture? On the contrary, students from mainland China do not have many difficulties with American communities. Actually, mainland Chinese students offer many positive contributions in various research fields and in campus culture. Wu just proves that the Taiwanese and Chinese cultures are of the same origin. His self-conflicting statements actually indicate the stupid and naive character of their group.
As a Chinese, I want to make it clear: The reason a few Taiwanese want to be independent from China is based on their own economic considerations. It has nothing to do with cultural difference. In fact, most Chinese (including Taiwan Chinese) hope to be united because of the integrity of the Chinese language, culture and social value. The majority of Taiwan people hope that some day, as Chinese citizens, they can visit their relatives and old friends or do business in mainland China without fear.
If a few Taiwanese want to complain that their dreams of being split from mainland China can never come true, they should go home and blame their parents for giving them yellow skin and Chinese last names instead of taking advantage of the freedom of speech and the American propaganda to create excuses about Chinese culture and to blame the policy of mainland China.
Hongbo Zhu
Nixon editorial revised many historical facts
Hongbo Zhu Shanghai, China graduate stu-
I would like to respond to Matt Hood's April 27 editorial entitled, "Nixon's actions deserve a balanced remembrance."
The point of Hood's editorial is valid (although the headline begs
the question, does any President not deserve a balanced remembrance?）He start off on the right track, using examples to illustrate most of his points. However, he soon regrades from fact to fantasy.
First, he says Nixon used "hate and revenge as a main motivation." Come on, Mr. Hood, do you really expect us to believe that the President of the United States was motivated mainly by hate and revenge? Nixon had a a profound sense of duty to his country; he was, if nothing else, a patriot. His motivation was this patriotism, even if it was sometimes misguided.
Second. Hood makes the incredible assertion that "Nixon's foreign policies were effective because he was feared." Feared by whom? By the Russians and Chinese? (Chairman Mao is probably spinning in his grave.) The very real fact is that Nixon was a brilliant diplomat, and his Secretary of State wrote the book on the subject.
Nixon was by no means a perfect man or perfect president, but he loved his country, even when his country did not love him. We should indeed remember both the "good half and the bad half" of Nixon's presidency, but we should not revise history in the process.
Derek Brown Stanlev senior
Farmers are not upset about Fort Riley closing
Matt Hood's recent editorial about "self-interested farmer crying" about the closure of Fort Riley shows blatant ignorance of the issue and its ramifications.
Many farmers lost their land in the base's first expansion in the 1950s, and they were forced to relocate. Some of these same farmers lost acreage when Tuttle Creek reservoir was created in the 1960s. Many of the farmers see the closure as an assurance that their land will never be crammed into the greedy maws of the gargantuan federal pork barrel. Their crop and livestock prices probably will not be affected, nor are farmers unhappy that their windows will no more be broken by nearby firing-range explosions.
Local business owners are up in arms about the precarious position of their future, but to say that farmers are now bemoaning its demise is simply not true.
Matt Roth
Manhattan freshman
Now offering top dollar for your used books!
KU Bookstores Kansas and Burge Unions
Textbook Hotline...864-5285 Burge Union Store...864-5697
SPEND YOUR SUMMER AT THE RANCH
Monday $3.00 Pitchers
Tuesday $1.50 Bottles
Wednesday Ladies Night
$1.75 Zimas
Thursday $3.00 Cover
75¢ Draws
$1.00 Margaritas
Last Day of Class Blow-out
$1.50 Domestic Bottles $1.50 Lemon Drop Shots $2.00 Myer's Rum Drinks
Don't Forget WEDNESDAY 50¢ Draws/No cover
The 18th will be open all summer long Coming soon we will announce our fabulous summer specials!
1344 Tennessee
Mon.- $2.75 Pitchers
Tues.- 25¢ Draws $3.00 Cover
Wed. $1.50 Big Beers 50¢ Draws $1.75 22 oz. Bud Light Bottles
Thurs. $1.00 Big Beers $3.00 Cover
Fri. $1.25 Cans
Sat. $1.00 Kamis
Sun. $1.75 12 oz. Bottles