4
Friday, March 18, 1994
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
1.20
VIEWPOINT
Demanding HIV-testing is a violation of rights
Baltimore officials went too far by arresting a man and forcing him to undergo a test for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
County officials notified the man in 1992 that his partner had tested positive for the HIV-virus and that he had been exposed. When the man did not appear at the health department for testing after several calls, James Rowe of the Maryland AIDS Administration and County Health Officer James Bowes asked the sheriff to arrest the man.
On his way to work, the man was pulled over, handcuffed and taken to the county jail for an HIV test.
That action was a violation of the man's right to privacy. For whatever reason, the man did not want to know if he had HIV. County officials did not arrest the man because he was threatening anyone. They arrested him because he might have HIV.
While it is a crime in Maryland to knowingly spread potentially fatal diseases, the man was not arrested for that. In fact, county officials were making the assumption that he would commit a crime.
Having HIV is not a crime. Once this man knows, against his will, he can choose the type of treatment that he prefers, even if that means not being treated.
If we can arrest people simply on the assumption that they might have HIV, then what do we do when we know that they are infected? Are we to track their movements on the off chance they might break the law?
Even though many of us would want to know if we had HIV, each person should make that decision for himself or herself.
HEATHER KIRKWOOD FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Yeltsin's refusal to meet with Nixon ridiculous
The United States government should be increasingly concerned with the direction and leadership of Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Recently, Yeltsin refused to meet with former President Richard Nixon because Nixon also had met with opposition leader Alexander Rutskoi. Yeltsin is putting symbolism over substance in a cheap attempt to look strong at home.
Yeltsin had much to gain by talking to Nixon. Despite his domestic problems, Nixon still is viewed by many as one of our greatest foreign policy presidents ever. His dealings with Mao Zedong and Leonid Brezhnev give him one of the world's most unique perspectives on international politics. Unfortunately, Yeltsin apparently felt that he didn't need Nixon's perspective.
This meeting, fully encouraged and supported by President Clinton, would have given Yeltsin and his government additional input for their economic and political reforms. By canceling a previously arranged meeting with Nixon, our government should question whether Yeltsin is more interested in continuing the reform movement or appeasing the lunatic fringe.
Yeltsin obviously is free to meet with whomever he wants, for whatever reason. However, this incident seems petty and ridiculous. Nixon didn't voice any support for Rutskoi. In fact, it's possible that Nixon may have warned Rutskoi about the dangers of his ill-fated ideas. Regardless, meeting with Nixon for a couple of hours did not seem like too much to ask.
With all of the changes going on in Moscow, it is vital for the United States and the rest of the world that Russia lives up to its reform plans. Let's hope that Yeltsin's refusal to meet with Nixon will be seen as an insignificant step backwards.
RICHARD BOYD FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Republicans keep making waves out of Whitewater's little ripples
COLUMNIST
"I didn't Vote for the Dope from Hope," reads one bumper sticker, "Clinton, Gore, Gone in Four": The KU Republicans hawked that one in the student union recently. My favorite is the T-shirt I saw in a convenience store in Alma, Ark., showing Clinton in a missing person ad on a milk carton. The caption read, "I Hope Bill comes up missing someday." Clinton-bashing has become downright vicious lately.
Slogans on car bumpers and shirts are one thing, but when such thinking invades policymaking it becomes truly alarming.
Note, for example, the shrill shrieks of scandal emanating from Sens. Phil Gramm of Texas and Alphonse D'Amato of New York. When news broke that White House officials improperly contacted members of the Whitewater investigation team, these Republicans quickly dropped a few key phrases like hand grenades on the Senate floor. "A new Watergate," "cover-up," "a cloud over the presidency" and even "impeachment" were guaranteed to win headlines and
damage Clinton's credibility whatever the actual facts happened to be.
At worst, Clinton may be guilty of exercising bad judgment, keeping bad company and accepting illegal campaign contributions. These things are not to be lightly dismissed, if true. The Clinton administration is also guilty of incredible ineptitude in its handling of the whole affair.
Nixon's league.
But bumbling is not lying. And a new Watergate? Get real. Richard Nixon so abused the powers of his office with bribes, wirestap, intimidation and dishonesty that he endangered the very structure of American constitutional government. Clinton isn't in
This doesn't seem to matter to some Republicans, who have been making a habit of bumper-sticker politicking ever since Clinton took office. They juxtapose simple, powerful words in the minds of the public: Whitewater/Watergate, Clinton/scandal, Democrat/cover-up. Put these words together and shout them loud enough and long enough and they'll stick in voters' heads, blocking out the more difficult complexities of truth.
This strategy already is enjoying some success. Clinton's approval ratings have dropped several points, and a majority of Americans now think Clinton must have done something wrong, though few could say exactly what. Republicans want this general feeling of suspicion and unease.
I find this very troubling and not just because I support Bill Clinton or dislike Republicans. My family has been staunchly Republican for at least two generations. I have voted for Republican candidates before and probably will again. The histrionics of Gramm and his buddies are embarrassing for
someone like me who has a conservative streak and who wishes to find supportable republican principles. I expect better from the party of Abraham Lincoln.
We need a responsible conservative voice in Washington to help keep Clinton in the political center where he belongs and where his best instincts lie. Some Republicans have been doing just that, offering reasoned, principled alternatives to Democratic policies which promote the American genius of compromise.
But others are not. They are printing bumper stickers and T-shirts. Whether out of ambition, frustration or simple hatred of the president, some Republicans are blindly damaging an already very fragile public trust in the political process. They also are unwittingly damaging themselves. "It will be a long time before I vote Republican again". How would that look on a bumper sticker.
Brian Dirk is a Conway, Ark., graduate student in history.
Phone Company manipulates us all
COLUMNIST
As far as I know, there are only two monopolies left in this country, one being 1970s T.V. sitcom repeats, which Nickelodeon has cornered the market on, and the other being the phone company.
Let me point out that a "monopoly," as defined by Webster's New Revised Orthodox Collegiate Expert Professional Hernia Inducing Dictionary, is "1. A really huge syndicate that manipulates people like chess pieces and has a domineering presence that makes Darth Vader look like a girl scout. 2. A board game where one play can last upwards of six weeks."
Now, you may be saying to yourself, "Wait a minute, how can the phone company be a monopoly when there are so many different groups advertising on television right now that they will soon have their own cable channel?" The phone company is, of course, an all-encompassing entity, writing with wires and switchboards and identically dressed phone company personnel with such crackerjack reflexes that they are able to place a caller on hold before he even
finishes dialing.
The way I know that all the different companies are actually tied to one huge conglomerate is because the father of one of my friends works for a telecommunications company (whose emblem is a bell). And he told me about a set of unwritten rules that ALL phone companies are obligated to abide by. I'll take a chance and share a few of them with you here:
The Phone Company is to provide you with a reception so clear that Candice Bergen can call you to ask if you could hear the pin she just dropped on her glass coffee table.
The Phone Company shall make available additional services at additional costs to you on your monthly bill, such as "call waiting," or "call blocker" or "a dial tone when phone is picked up". These features often cost much more than an entire sofa sectional that has been set affe, but are not as useful.
The Phone Company is to furnish every street corner with an out-of-orderphone booth for super heroes to change their clothes in.
You would think that dealing with the phone company would be no big deal. But my roommate and I have been experiencing a few problems lately with our particular company, which I will not name here except to say that if you were to stare at the first three letters of the word "attachment," you might be able to make a guess after awhile. I think our main gripe is that these guys refuse to wait until we actually have made any phone calls before assessing late charges to our bill.
I usually try to handle the bills with acts of cool-headed maturity, such as
opening the living room window and screaming obscenes at passersby until I feel better. But my roommate is not nearly so composed. He actually has the audacity to CALL the phone company and COMPAIN. This, of course, is akin to stepping into the lion's den, the act of an individual pushed to the brink of insanity. When the phone company gets a call like this, it always stop whatever it's doing and puts the complaint on a huge office-wide speaker phone, so that every employee can laugh hysterically as the lucky operator explains to the person that, according to company records, their bill with the 176 long-distance phone calls to Guam totaling $46,981 "seems to be in order."
Eventually, my roommate will decide to simply forego his college education and pay the bill, thus having fallen victim to yet another corporate giant's exploitation. And we can only what kind of stuff goes on at Nickelodeon.
Scott Agin is a Topeka sophomore in journalism.
KANSAN STAFF
BEN GROVE, Editor
LISA COSMILLO, Managing editor
TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser
BILL SKEET, Systems coordinator
Editors
**Aest Managing Editor...Dan England**
Assistant to the editor...J.R. Clairborne
News...Kristi Fogler, Katie Greenwald
Todd Selfert
Editorial...Colleen McCain
Nathan Olson
Campus...Jess DeHaven
Sports...David Dorsey
Photo...Doug Hesse
Features...Sara Bennett
Wire...Allison Lipper
Freelance...Christine Laue
JUSTIN GARBERG Business manager
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser
JENNIFER BLOWEY Retail sales manager
Business Staff
Campus sales mgr ... Jason Eberly
Regional sales mgr ... Troy Tervawer
National & Coop sales mgr ... Robin King
Special sections mgr ... Shelly McConnell
Production mgr ... Laura Guth
... Gretchen Ketterleinch
Marketing director ... Shannon Reilly
Creative director ... John Carlton
Classified mgr ... Kelly Connely
Tearsheets mgr ... Wing Chan
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Texas at Austin must also include their university name.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
The Kansas reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall.
How to raise kids with television: turn it off
Similar ideas have been expressed by other people who think they know how to raise successful children. They acknowledge that, yes, television is often intellectually and morally bankrupt. But then they suggest that watching television should be a family activity.
A Florida minister was quoted in a recent newspaper story about how to be a more effective parent. He urged that families watch television together, with parents acting as a "moral commentator."
These specialists can't seem to bring themselves to recommend the obvious, which is to turn off the tube and do something worthwhile. One wonders why they can't. Perhaps they are wedded to a permissive educational system in which there are no moral absolutes. So they feel compelled to find some way to justify television, even though it dulls the
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
imagination, encourages passivity, glamorizes violence and promotes disrespect for society's traditional values.
What nonsense these people are
sneading.
World-Herald Omaha, Neb.
Video game warnings won't protect children
Under pressure from Congress, the video-game industry has promised to have a voluntary sex-and violence warning system ready by Christmas. So the children will be served by this system, right?
Wrong. For all its bluster, Congress won't censor video games. Congress loves little children, but it respects stockholders. Industry officials know it. They also know that warning labels silence critics, and they can go on making money with what sells — sex and violence. The film and music industries have
shown how ratings can be used to promote what critics deplore...
A society that can't impose standards on its public places is unlikely to be able to enforce them on private activity. Government can't protect children from video games. The industry won't...
Parents and wiser friends must take the video "trips" with them. That's not a simple solution like labels. It's the hard solution, the one that works.
The Post Palm Beach, Fla.
House should pass ban on all assault weapons
But legislation to stop the sale of such military-style weapons, along with copycat models and clips that hold large amounts of ammunition,
An overwhelming number of Americans - 77 percent, according to a recent poll - favor an outright ban on assault weapons.
is stalled in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The assault weapons ban, authored by S. Deniae Feinstein, D-Calif., is part of a larger anti-crime package approved by the Senate on a 56-43 vote. But now the ban is stuck in the House because Rep Jack Brooks, D-Dexas, has it bottled up in the Judiciary Committee. Brooks is a foe of gun control.
But there is no valid reason for assault weapons to be on the market, and there are many reasons why they should not be...
In today's world, with pandemic violent crime, especially among our youth, allowing the manufacture and sale of military-style weaponry with huge ammo clips is lunacy. Although the National Rifle Association will quibble over the statistics about assault weapons, the public understands that there is absolutely no justification for them.
Union-Tribune San Diego. Calif.